Should the lyrical compositions of Rap music
be regulated by governmental agencies?
by R.A. Mills

INTRODUCTION:

The hip-hop culture is a medium used to provide an audience with the opportunity for having a good time through music. Today this art form has evolved to providing social commentaries on top of a musical background. Due to the harshness of the language and realness of the visual images, some have argued that there should be limits placed on who should hear these thoughts. Once anyone begins referring to the prevention or prohibition of any type of speech, there are cries of "censorship."

There are several players involved in cases of free speech. Those who want to express themselves (in order that knowledge be advanced); those who want to receive the information (that will guide them to the truth of matters surrounding them and help find their place in the world); and those who have no desire to be exposed to the information.

It is arguable about what should and should not be free speech. In a democratic society, such as the United States of America, there are often differences in opinion as to what the original intent of the framers of the U.S. Constitution were. This uncertainty becomes evident in matters relating to the first amendment, and if it was to be absolute in the provision for freedom of speech.

When the framers of the Constitution wrote the first amendment they wrote, "Congress shall make no law.abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." It is obvious that the framers viewed the freedom of inquiry a nd liberty of expression as an essential part of the process of "debate and discovery". If humans are to progress as a group, there has to be open dialogue.

THE ETHICAL:

Is it unethical to allow a person to speak openly on any matter?

Although all speech is not acceptable, the first amendment of the United States Constitution allows one to freely express. Freedom of expression is especially important as an overall educational forum. This allows individuals to come together to participate in a "process of shared inquiry. This process can succeed only through openness, honesty and a tolerance for unpopular ideas and opinions, no matter how hateful or offensive. Therefore, if one has the right to speak freely, as allowed by the Constitution, there is not doubt that it is to be an unobstructed right.

Compromising a person's right to free speech ultimately threatens the right of the minority views within our society. However, Supreme Court precedent has allowed free expression, but qualified it to avoid unjustly effecting the rights of others. Therefore, it is not the U.S. Constitution that limits free speech, but the agents that are to guard its precepts.

Being spawned from a minority sub-culture, primarily exposed to the oppressive actions of other forces, rap music began to make social commentaries that were so real. The only choice given those not experiencing the turmoil spoken of, was to turn a deaf ear to it. Because someone does not want to hear something, does that make it invalid, or prevent one from expressing themselves to others?

The expressions come from what the individuals know. If one's exposure is to the societal ills most rappers speak of, denying their speech, is in actuality, denying their existence and negating the problems at hand. According to their morality, what they see day after day, whether agreeable by the majority of the population or not, is a reality. A reality that some can only cope with by bringing attention to a situation that needs immediate intervention, will hopefully bring about a remedy.

A literal interpretation of the first amendment, would mean there is no place in our system for the government to become involved in activities that may restrict individuals from advocating their free speech. The problem s do not come from the speech. The speech comes about as a result of the problems in society. Controlling this speech only ignores that there are some people in our world who live in conditions that would be unfit for humans, under most circumstances. In essence, the social contract is validated, since all citizens should live in humane condition.

The inability to handle a problem does not cause it to disappear. The desire not to know about some societal wrong does not negate the opportunity of others to tell the story. Is the common good served by ignoring the brutality imposed upon a class of people? Or is it served by abolishing the situations which cause one to live in undesirable conditions?

If one is bringing the social ills of any given community within our society, to the attention of others, can that speech (via rhetoric or visual images) which represents reality be restricted from reaching the masses? Is this not a way of allowing one to realize what their individual responsibility is to the greater society? Is this not a means of attaining truth? For how else would the truth be known unless someone brings it to the forefront.

Freedom of expression is vital to the attainment of truth and the advancement of knowledge. We must agree that if one is to make a conscious and accurate judgment that it is only possible if all facts are considered.

Antoher reason freedom of speech is necessary to our society is to ensure that everyone has access to all information, ideas and points of views. It would be very easy for the government to act with tyranny if the people were uninformed masses of ignorance. However, the people are truly sovereign if all information is readily and openly available for their scrutiny.

Finally, freedom of expression provides a social control function that ensures against any possible corruption and abuse within the government. The more control the government has, the greater the possibility becomes that the government can use that power to quell unpopular minorities, and any type of criticism or dissent.

Giving the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process, by bringing the conditions that require change to the attention of those who have the decision-making power, can only allow open discussions. This allows members of the public to voice their concerns honestly.

Therefore, whether agreeable by the majority or not, speech that is undesirable does play a role within the overall organization of government and community. Allowing undesired speech to exist can work towards the "common good" of indemnifying the actions that led to the social ills causing the undesirable speech.

However, the song merely provides a channel through which others can direct their anger and gives credence to the fact that any type of police misconduct should be investigated and reviewed. Again this only comes about because of a persons right to exercise their free speech.

Therefore, one must agree that it is only ethical that a person be allowed to say whatever they desire. The offensiveness of the words or situations, does not eliminate the conditions that brought it about. It would be wrong to suppress something that can help an entire community move forward.

THE LEGAL:

Does one have the legal right to speak his mind?

The surety of free speech implies doctrines of individual distinctiveness and dependability. For the most part, speech becomes punishable when there is a recognizable harm in precise, discernible ways. The forms of expr

ession referred to here are invasion of privacy, defamation, libel, commercial speech, where the speech in question is really a verbal act, or obscenity.

"In this area (violent content), the Supreme Court has settled on a line that protects all communications, including those that may be thought to promote violence or otherwise convey bad ideas, unless a particular communication amounts to actual, direct incitement to specific violent or criminal acts."

Not only are violent thoughts protected, but those that involve sexual explicitness are as well. "The courts have recognized that sex is such a big part of human life that sexual materials are to be accorded the same degree of protection as political speech. The First Amendment serves as a "restraint" on possible abuse that governmental powers hold. It's meant to oppose those forces that react to differing views by applying unreasonable jail terms or any punishment that may discourage critique.

Although the Constitution provides for free speech, the Justices of the United States Supreme Court prepared a three pronged test that serves to ensure that "free speech" does not swing towards obscenity. This test came about as a result of the Supreme Court case of Miller v. California (1973). For anything to be found legally obscene it has to fail all portions of this test.

Rap music and obscenity are often coupled together because of the images and words used. Those who some rappers, such as Luther "Luke" Campbell, would call the "Morality Police," consider the shock of hearing some terms used in lyrics as obscene.

Lyrics of most rap songs go from the liberal to conservative ends of the spectrum. If one desires to use a test to determine the corruptive level of any particular song, it is unfair to use a legal test that does not consider the subculture that created the object being tested. Music cannot be fully understood without its associated cultural context.

Rap music is part of a subculture that believes in providing a straight forward message of reality. When words of a subculture are assimilated into the dominant culture.misperceptions may result. Sociologist Elija Anderson believes this culture is self-destructive (which is in itself argumentative), but notes that it is a "byproduct of the decline of the manufacturing economy of American cities.as a result those who appear successful in the inner-city are drug dealers and murderers.

The fact that some forms of rap music provide an outlet for non-conformist ideas gives it, as a whole, serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. It forces one to remove the "rose colored shades" and handle the built up futility and anger from within inner-city communities. Music can reveal feelings with such a detail and truth that basic language can not come close to doing.

The Supreme Court has consistently rejected the notion that speech is punishable because it offends some people's sensibilities. Statutes and practices that penalize expression based on content, have generally been invalidated. If we follow the words of the First Amendment, we would know that no one can legally be imprisoned for speaking or writing thoughts.

Popular and agreeable ideas do not need protection from government restraint; only those that are unpopular. Unpopular ideas allow for discussions that are essential to the advancement of society. These discussions are part of what some call the "free marketplace of ideas."

Restricting the sale of music that contain lyrics some call nasty does not fall in line with the First Amendment. Those purchasing a record or tape are not a captive audience. They are making a conscious decision to purchase the material, and are, therefore, allowing themselves to be subjected to the material on the record.

"What needs to be asked is can violent images incite violent action, can music set the stage for political mobilization, or do sexually explicit lyrics contribute to the moral breakdown of society" . Most often rappers are speaking from individual accounts by taking on the role of the spectator or storyteller.

Their raps are about issues on dealing with "the loss of friends to gun fights and drug overdoses, and they sometimes tell violent tales powered by male sexual power over women." These multi-layered discussions most definitely seem preposterous when taken out of their "social context." If hip-hop gives a voice to those involved in the "tensions and contradictions" of inner-city settings, how can one call that message obscene?

CONCLUSION:

Should the lyrical compositions of rap music be regulated by governmental agencies?

It can be agreed that all speech may not be acceptable, however, the first amendment of the United States Constitution allows one to speak freely without fear of retribution from authoritative figures.

Tolerating free expression is significant to any academic forum. This autonomy allows individual's to speak on matter's unpopular ideas or opinions, that may normally be considered offensive, openly and honestly. Unpopular ideas allow for discussions that are essential to the advancement of society. Allowing this assures that individual's maintain their right to free speech, their independence is affirmed.

Politically, most lyrics provide insight into areas of human and civil rights that are not often experienced. The lyrics have literary value due to the fact that most of the songs heavily use metaphors, parables, and rhymes that carry a person's thought pattern to another level.

Therefore, one must agree that ethically and legally a person is allowed to say whatever they desire. The repulsiveness of the words doesn't negate the fact that the conditions being discussed exist. Governmental agencies should not regulate the lyrical compositions of rap music. It is only proper to allow one to exercise their right speak freely on topics that assist the community as a whole.