BANNED IN THE USA - Censorship Part 2 »
Posted by: Radiofreeeuropa 4 months, 3 weeks agoConsiderable Sounds takes a look at censorship in 1970s and 1980s. Part 2 of a trilogy of articles about censorship, free speech, it's defenders, and it's opponents. History and commentary.
Read Full Story at dulyconsider.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 81
-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa4 months, 3 weeks ago
Many have asked about this, the 1st story was quite popular. I hope you enjoy this installment as well. Censorship is alive and well. It has mutated, but it has not gone away. A bit on the lengthy side, but worth the time invested I believe. The 70s and 80s were full of controversy too.
You can read part 1 here.
http://dulyconsider.blogspot.com/2007/12/consid...
Reply-
0%
newbie04204 months, 3 weeks ago
So, what's the differnce between them "censoring" the first amendment and them "censoring" the second amendment?
I'm all for labelling CD's with vulgar lyrics and making them available only to those older then 18 or at parental discretion. I was buying NWA, Easy-E and even Pantera tapes as a kid and while I turned out OK (tho that is up for debate) how did it affect others?
A Ghetto Boys lyric that sticks with me:
"Keep letting the government dictate what you hear next thing you know they'll put a sticker on your ear, even with that move we got em in anguish, kuz we'll learn sign language"
As long as they government doesn't say "no swearing on ANY new music" I dont have a problem.
Just like I am OK with certain gun laws. Background checks, age restrictions, waiting periods and things like that make sense to me.
Reply-
0%
memestryker4 months, 3 weeks ago
I think labelling is more understandable, since it's just a helpful tool for parents, and they are legally responsible for kids. In fact, I think one growing problem is feral kids.
I don't think gun laws work most of the time, since criminals and lunatics don't obey them anyway, and they stop ordinary citizens from buying tools for self-protection in emergencies. Age restrictions stop youth olympians from being able to participate in recreational shooting because of the need to always have an older person present, which often isn't possible.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Beau78904 months, 3 weeks ago
Great article, radio--researching all of this must have kept you busy for a while.
It never fails to surprise me that those who would censor miss the point that their reasons for censoring are no different than others over the years; the reasons are always based on the ever-changing contextual standards. What would have been acceptable 100 or even 50 years ago isn't seen that way today, and similarly, what might have been considered obscene then is often laughable today.
The obvious problem with censorship is that those who decide what is and is not acceptable can never be entirely objective.
But there's a more insidious issue: the most dangerous ideas are the ones that are kept underground, where they can never be kept from spreading but can't be openly debated.
Reply-
-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa4 months, 3 weeks ago
I am against all censorship, including silencing voices I disagree with. Who are these democrats who want to censor radio? I would not agree. Censorship has mutated though, Federal Government has not been involved overtly for some time. (Except perhaps Iraq related reporting). Censorship is now conducted controlling the market. Clear Channel for instance owning vast majority of radio stations decides what you hear and do not. And they do have a political agenda, as does Mao Mart, who decides what will be available to you on their shelves. This slippery slope exists, it is difficult to condemn as a man has a right to decide what products he would like to sell in his "store". But if a giant corporation that controls more than 70 percent of a market decides it will not sell a product then it becomes the new form of censorship. Clear Channel will be discussed in detail in the 3rd installment of this article- the 90s and 00s.
Reply -
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.
-
-
0%
Beau78904 months, 3 weeks ago
The American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom has been fighting censorship of all kinds for over 40 years. Anyone who'd like to challenge attempts to ban books or other forms of expression will find the OIF a valuable resource:
http://ala.org/ala/oif/basics/Default2272.cfm
That page also includes links to pages giving help to those challenging censorship.
Reply -
0%
Radiofreeeuropa4 months, 3 weeks ago
Thanks Beau, Librarians are often the pillars upon which civilization rests.
Reply -
0%
Francisca4 months, 3 weeks ago
Thank you RFE for this huge work!! and all the details...
I am not sure people even know that writers like George Orwell, Mark Twain, Lewis Carroll, Confucius etc...etc...have been condemned in the old days! It would be risible today! And however it has changed the perception of how to see the World...
The proof is here: we must never stop to say what we think, never stop to write what is disturbing. More the people are aware and better it is for everyone! Obscurantism is an archaic way...( has always been)
Reply -
0%
Mdiar4 months, 3 weeks ago
Stephen King seems to have been targeted for censorship quite a bit on that first list! A shame, the three books listed are all quite good. Don Quixote, I can see that being censored in Europe a couple of hundred years ago, good book though. When will we ever learn that censorship is not the way to go, no matter how offensive something may be to you?
Reply -
0%
Fangarius4 months, 3 weeks ago
It's strange how 'Fahrenheit 451' was banned due to coarse language, though it's a tale about book burning and censorship. Ray Bradbury also penned a precursor to this tale in the Martian Chronicles (another banned book, btw), because in 'April 2005: Usher II,' Bradbury takes a satirical look with censorship.
In this case, it's how an actor and author get revenge on the 'Moral Climates' by luring them into a revamped version of the House of Usher, and murdered by 'offensive' mythical creatures.
What I find funny about censorship is how it doesn't really protect anyone, but instead exemplifies our stupidity. In the 70s with comics and kid shows, one could have a gun, but not use it to shoot anyone. Unless it was a 'laser ray' gun, and it did something other than killing you. If you watch Mission: Magic, you'll note how no one gets killed or physically harmed in the show.
Even more disturbing, I doubt the show would make it today.
(cont.)
Reply-
0%
Fangarius4 months, 3 weeks ago
Not because of the wild adventures the group went on, but the fact Miss Tickle implements 'magic' for solving problems. Funny thing is, when you start censoring every little item, what do you have left to enjoy.
Because as Berkeley Breathed pointed out once in Bloom County, life, in general, is offensive, no matter how one looks at it, and rather than censoring it, we should instead learn about respecting others rights than controlling it.
Reply-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa4 months, 3 weeks ago
I understand the desire to protect, but history seems to indicate that censorship is never the way.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
memestryker4 months, 3 weeks ago
One resource I think is a boon to us all is the Public Library of Science.
I remember shortly after Bush's first inauguration, the material on condoms and abortion went "under construction" on all government websites. I don't think it's much better now.
In all fairness, most if not all presidents shelve information that doesn't support their agenda: Reagan stopped a report he'd initiated from being published when it suggested abortion is exponentially safer for a woman than carrying a pregnancy to term, and Clinton ignored reports that suggested the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban would not reduce crime, saying "don't tell me this bill won't make a difference" (it didn't).
And those were two presidents who had some attributes I strongly admired.
Reply -
0%
Spadecaller4 months, 3 weeks ago
Thanks RFE!
The alleged source to much of the censorship today comes in the guise of "protecting young people."
The one group whose oppression we seem blind to is that of young people. Unless you are have worked in the field, most people don't even know the term, "adultism" which, I believe is the source to much of the censorship issues that continue to plague us.
(IN fact, the term adultism, has been coined by several authors since the 70's, but it has been "rejected" or "censored" -- primarily because of its powerful message.)
It's the one oppression that hits all of us early and hard and keeps on hitting us until we cross into adulthood and begin to oppress the younger ones behind us. Several commonly held adultist beliefs stem from the false notion that we know best -- that our skills and virtues are superior, and that the world around us are our children who need our protection.
(continued)
Reply-
0%
Spadecaller4 months, 3 weeks ago
We are taught to believe we are incapable of autonomy and lack the skills necessary to think for ourselves. Have you ever heard statments like these:
"You're so smart for fifteen!"
"When are you going to grow up?"
"As long as you are in my house, you'll
do it!"
"You're being childish."
"Yo u're so stupid (or clumsy, inconsidera t e,
etc.)!"
"Go to your room!"
"You cannot possible understand what I know.."
"You are too old for that!"
"You're not
old enough!"
"Oh, it's only puppy love."
"What do you know? You haven't
experienced anything!"
"It's just a stage. You'll outgrow it."
The tyranny of believing that others need our protection from themselves translates into censorship. It is the internalized oppression of adultism that makes one person think that he/she is qualified to think for the rest of us.
Reply-
0%
Charlson4 months, 3 weeks ago
I still remember the "Catcher in the Rye" controversy in my youth. It was banned in many schools around the country. It is a portrayal of a young man's sexuality and teenage angst with a liberal use of profanity which was considered so threatening to youths of America. Of course it only encouraged me to read it even more.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
skeptic2714 months, 3 weeks ago
It's all well and good to say one is opposed to censorship but how much censorship do we accept and even support?
Censorship of photos of soldier's coffins
Self censorship by the networks of the horrors of war.
Censorship of bad words on radio, television and newspapers.
Censorship of nudity by television and newspapers.
Even the movie rating system is form of censorship.
Censorship of pornography.
Reply -
0%
Bacalao4 months, 3 weeks ago
Great article RFE. I appreciate the efforts you have put into this. thank you.
Reply -
ML2007Comment removed: User banned.
-
OnionHeadComment removed: User banned.
-
0%
crespi4 months, 3 weeks ago
Fantastic post RFE and all solid comments.
I am fanatically against most censorship but as a volunteer disc jockey at a public Radio station I actually appreciate the parental warning so I won't play a "f*ck" on the air and get the station fined or closed down by the FCC.
Now this IN ITSELF is an arguable form of censorship (that we should probably argue about) but here's the thing-
Some of the mid 1990's "gangsta rap" DID get a little harsh...guys aggressively chanting "Cop kill the ni*ger kill the cop kill the cop kill the ni*ger" or With my gat in your ear you got something to fear. Cut the ho if she don't go" might have its reasons for existence but I don't know if 7 year old children (who ARE impressionable) should be exposed to any super-aggressive-violent or misogynistic stuff too much...
Their is always a natural ceiling for freedom...it's kind of weird that way...
Reply -
0%
Fangarius4 months, 3 weeks ago
Oh, I meant to say kudos to your article RFE as well. Skeptic, you're right also on one major dilemma behind censorship in general: what as we, the public determine is acceptable and unacceptable in society?
Ironically, it's quite the double-edge sword because on the one hand, as you pointed out, we do censor language when it comes to our mass media, like television, newspapers and radio. Or as George Carlin said, "7 words you cannot say on national television (as opposed to cable television)."
Yet, during our censoring of items we determine might 'harm' our impressionable youths, we end up doing more damage than good. Because as Charslon indicated, the banning of "Catcher in The Rye" just fueled his/her desire for reading it rather than encourage advoidance of it.
(cont.)
Reply-
0%
Fangarius4 months, 3 weeks ago
Before you groan with this citation, another good example about how censorship doesn't always effectively work was from a Brady Bunch episode. The one where Bobby inadvertently idolizes Jesse James because he read somewhere the infamous outlaw considered himself "The Robin Hood of the West."
In one scene, Mike and Carol decide on allowing Bobby to watch a prime-time movie about Jesse James (remember in the 70s, prime-time wasn't always for kids). Regrettably, because network censors ended up extracting the violent scenes where James killed people and terrorized them, the altered version fuels Bobby's admiration for the outlaw.
Whereas in relation to this, Spade has also proven as well, another problem with Censorship is the double-standard, where we utilize the guise of 'protecting' our youth, but in reality, we tend to stifle the skills for us thinking for ourselves and making proper choices on what's appropriate and inappropriate in our society.
(cont.)
Reply-
0%
Fangarius4 months, 3 weeks ago
Returning back to Skeptic, you're right about the movie ratings system, and all ratings systems in general. They are a form of censorship, but in a Bizarro sort of way.
Originally, ratings were developed in helping parents and others determine what could and could not be shown to certain audiences. Regrettably, nowadays, the media has utilized this system as a means for 'anything goes' than genuinely using it for it's true design.
For instance, when Showtime first came out as the first pay-movie channel, the purpose was showing unedited, uncut films in your home. Now Showtime was responsible when they first came out, their schedule allowed them to show certain movies (and later shows) at certain times. Morning - classic movies (G - Rated); Prime Time - normal movies (G & PG); Night - After Hours programming (R). Due to the fact Showtime was their own network and one had to pay for it, the FCC didn't regulate it.
(cont. sorry, character limitations)
Reply
-
-
-
0%
amazed4 months, 3 weeks ago
This was quite interesting, but not much new. From the headline, I was expecting instances of the gov't censoring thing from the general public == kind of like the censoring of the public airways that goes on continually -- you know, no nudity, no seven words, etc.
Almost without exception, the censorship you have listed here (except Lady Chatterly's Lover) is either 1. in the distant past, 2. in a distant country or, 3. banned from school boards, but not the general public.
It is school boards mandate (no matter how misguided they may be) to try to protect our little one's young, malleable and fragile minds (yeah, that's sarcastic).
It is the general banning of expression that I find much more alarming -- TV censorship, politically correct speech and, like that. I really can't get too worked up about a school district taking (or not ordering) books from the school library or taking them off some list.
Reply-
0%
amazed4 months, 3 weeks ago
C'mon, now, be honest -- how often did you ever actually read any of the books you were supposed to WHEN you were supposed to.
And, be honest again, didn't you REALLY go out of your way to get your hands on those books that you knew were banned?
My son had to read "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" BEFORE his freshman year in high school. I gotta tell you, he REALLY wasn't ready for it, it did nothing good for him and he still lists it (he's a senior in college, now) as the worst book he ever read. Maybe if he was older, it wouldn't have bothered him so badly (although it still haunts me -- and I read it at the same time).
Do I think it should have been banned from the high school? No, but I would have been quite upset if it had been recommended reading for my middle schooler (although it was close the way it was assigned) or my grammar school kid.
Reply-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa4 months, 3 weeks ago
I'm sorry if you were disappointed, Considerable Sounds focus is really the music aspect of the story, which is in 3 parts. Part one covered up to and including the 1960s. This installment covers 1970 through the 80s. The next installment will cover the 90s until the present (you may find this one more interesting). The background info about book bans is simply that...background. What I think matters here is the change in the methodology of censorship. With the exception of the PMRC, censorship is being conducted through new means that often can not be blamed on government.
Part 1 can be found here:
http://music.propeller.com/story/2007/12/05/con...
Reply
-
-
Submitted By:
Radiofreeeuropa
All progress comes from unreasonable people.
Greetings fellow travelers! Thanks for stopping in. I'm a musician, educator, and writer. I am the music editor ...
Also submitted:
- 9.1 - Vote For RFE and Tehranchik - Campaign News
- 7.4 - Ancient Race of Christian Man Discovered - Evolution Debunked?
- 6.0 - War on fascism requires dictatorial powers, fervent nationalism
- 3.8 - YouTube - Gentle Giant - Two Weeks in Spain [Live]
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
MidnightPrism
pawfoots
agentX- Helixbuilder
ciera-marie
Rinty
berkeley- eugenegerard
stephen-johnson
DarkWizard
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
