Well, the melody's catchy
I’m just not sure about the lyrics.
The last of our censorship dilemmas is about offensive lyrics in pop music, which have probably been around long before Thomas Shadwell wrote Nymphs and Shepherds and Dryden wrote Alexander’s Feast. They probably offended someone, but no one remembers who.
The question once again, is how bad something has to be to be banned. Where’s the line between tasteless but acceptable, and tasteless and unacceptable? And what of other circumstances? What might be unacceptable in one country might be greeted indifferently in another, just as attitudes vary from one age to another.
The discussion at the back of the book notes that censorship is a slippery creature because while it may be the right thing to do in very clear cases, there are others where it isn’t. There are also problems with implications vs. declarations, where the message isn’t overtly stated, but everyone knows what it actually is. This kind of tactic is used in more censorious societies to try and evade censorship.
Censorship isn’t necessarily unacceptable even in more tolerant societies which allow freedom of speech, but it ought (should it not?) be done for the good of the public. As I believe I said in my first entry on this matter, it shouldn’t be done just so that a government can suppress freedom of speech to maintain its own power. It seems to me (to go slightly off piste at this point) that freedom of speech and the rule of law are good for the health of a society. Censorship undermines this health and risks provoking people into action. The government of a certain country I know doesn’t seem to understand that its censorious behaviour is provocative and far from relieving pressure, merely increases it. The government still thinks it acts for the public good, but if you asked the question, “Who benefits?” and you then looked for an answer, I doubt whether it’d be the public.
The question once again, is how bad something has to be to be banned. Where’s the line between tasteless but acceptable, and tasteless and unacceptable? And what of other circumstances? What might be unacceptable in one country might be greeted indifferently in another, just as attitudes vary from one age to another.
The discussion at the back of the book notes that censorship is a slippery creature because while it may be the right thing to do in very clear cases, there are others where it isn’t. There are also problems with implications vs. declarations, where the message isn’t overtly stated, but everyone knows what it actually is. This kind of tactic is used in more censorious societies to try and evade censorship.
Censorship isn’t necessarily unacceptable even in more tolerant societies which allow freedom of speech, but it ought (should it not?) be done for the good of the public. As I believe I said in my first entry on this matter, it shouldn’t be done just so that a government can suppress freedom of speech to maintain its own power. It seems to me (to go slightly off piste at this point) that freedom of speech and the rule of law are good for the health of a society. Censorship undermines this health and risks provoking people into action. The government of a certain country I know doesn’t seem to understand that its censorious behaviour is provocative and far from relieving pressure, merely increases it. The government still thinks it acts for the public good, but if you asked the question, “Who benefits?” and you then looked for an answer, I doubt whether it’d be the public.
That’s the last censorship dilemma. Tomorrow (but with the implied proviso of indefiniteness) we start looking at ethical dilemmas in the world of business.
Comments