Restricting Creative Freedom
Sometimes, issues are brought up that make society uneasy. For instance, in the articles about the controversial Ice-T song “Cop Killer” many people were outraged by this song, which glorified the murder of cops, and demanded that, for the good of society, this song should not have been produced and should not be allowed to play on the radio. But, even though Ice-T’s song was one of violence, the need for social responsibility should not be allowed to restrict creative expression from reaching a willing audience.
A restriction of creative expression would allow censorship of what is considered “dangerous” and “bad,” but who is to choose what is dangerous and bad and what is good? The song “Cop Killer” can be easily classified in the “bad” category as it can be used to incite violence against the police, but there are other works that cannot be classified as easily. In Judy Blume’s article, “Is Harry Potter Evil?” Blume examines the recent attack on Harry Potter books. To some, Harry Potter is simply a fun fantasy which is enjoyable to read, but to others, it is considered evil since it supposedly promotes witchcraft and Satanism. Some of the extreme religious right would like to ban it entirely, but there are too many others who enjoy the books for them to be banned. Many people are amused by the seemingly hopeless effort of the extreme religious right in banning these books, but Blume writes, “The real danger is not in the books, but in laughing off those who would ban them. The protests against Harry Potter follow a tradition that has been growing since the early 1980’s and often leaves school principals trembling with fear that is then passed down to teachers and librarians.”
This fear of being protested against has made many textbook editors and librarians censor or limit access to many great literary works because some of these works are considered too offensive or objectionable. Ray Bradbury was one of the authors whose work, especially the novel Fahrenheit 451, was censored by numerous editors. In his afterword of Fahrenheit 451, he writes, “Only six weeks ago, I discovered that, over the years, some cubby-hole editors at Ballantine Books, fearful of contaminating the young, had, bit by bit, censored some 75 separate sections from the novel. Students, reading the novel which after all, deals with censorship and book-burning in the future, wrote to tell me of this exquisite irony.”
The problem is the lines between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable get blurred. Jeff Jacoby writes, “Of course not every complaint about a book is reasonable. Parents who want to keep Huckleberry Finn and Native Son out of students’ hands deserve to get short shrift. But not every complaints is unreasonable, either. Some books do contain vile language or graphic sex and violence; some books are inappropriate for younger readers.” But who decides what is inappropriate for an individual? Who is to keep his controversial material away from anyone who should not be exposed to this kind of work? The easiest way to keep this controversial work away from groups or individuals who are uncomfortable with the controversial content is to ban the entire piece of work or edit out all the objectionable parts, but once this type of censorship begins, who is to stop it? As Bradbury said, “Fire-Captain Beatty, in my novel Fahrenheit 451, described how the books were burned first by minorities, each ripping a page or a paragraph from this book, then that, until the day came when the books were empty and the minds shut and the libraries closed forever.” By allowing this censorship, are we actually giving ourselves the short shrift?
In Alan’s Kors article, “The Betrayal of Liberty on America’s Campuses,” an interesting side of censorship in the form of speech codes is brought up. After complaints that various racial and homosexual groups were being harassed on campus, many universities in the United States designed a speech code to stop hate speech and let minorities live on campus without fear of being insulted. To a certain extent, limitations of these kind can be helpful, but, as almost every other restriction of speech, it has turned into something much too restrictive. Gradually, the list of prohibited speech began to get bigger and bigger until a student couldn’t say any offhand remark (which may or may not have been intended as hate speech) without fear of being accused of a racist, sexist, bigot, or a homophobe later on. Among the things prohibited in these speech codes are certain sexual gestures, “inappropriately directed laughter,” and “fighting words.”
Again, to a certain extent, limitations of these kind can be helpful, but they can be and have been abused quite easily. Kors writes, “Most cases never reach the public, because most individuals accused of ‘verbal’ harassment sadly (but understandably) accept plea-bargains that diminish their freedom but spare them Draconian penalties, including expulsion.” When a student lives in fear of being known as a racist, sexist, bigot, or a homophobe just by offending someone with a misplaced remark, something is wrong with the speech code. And when the student’s freedoms are taken away in the name of social responsibility, something is terribly wrong.
What makes it worse is that creative expression of ideas can be used to further debate on some issues which should be discussed but normally aren’t, either out of fear or lack of recognition. Whether the song “Cop Killer” is justified or not, it has created a huge amount of discussion and has brought light to an issue that otherwise would not normally be discussed. As soon as the song was released, debate sprang up about many different issues that needed to be discussed such as whether the company which produced the record should be allowed to release such songs, whether violent songs were more powerful than violent movies, whether blacks were more susceptible in being fooled into doing these violent activities, and much more. Instead of banning the speech entirely and refusing to acknowledge the Ice-T’s song at all, people noticed what issues the song raised and then began to discuss these issues.
Kors writes, “The goal of liberty and equal justice is to permit us to live in a complex but peaceful world of difference, disagreement, debate, moral witness, and efforts of persuasion – without coercion and violence. Liberty and legal equality are hard-won, precious, and indeed – because the social world is often discomforting – profoundly complex and troublesome ways of being human.” There will always be disagreements and arguments on issues, but the only way we can recognize these issues and eventually work them out is to interchange ideas and then work toward a common goal. When speech is restricted and creative works are banned rather than recognized, we will not be able to debate with as much insight or wisdom into the matter.
Ultimately, even though censorship is typically used to protect minorities from undesirable situations, censorship would end up hurting the minorities it intends to protect. If you restrict creative freedom for some, you end up restricting it for all. Ice-T was a minority and trying to get his voice heard, yet many people tried to prohibit this song from being played on the radio. In many places, protests against this song succeeded and the song was not played on many radio stations.
When Ice-T’s song was first played on the radio, one of the issues that came up from his song, made in 1992 right after the Los Angeles riots, was about police brutality. Could this song be a result of black people’s dissatisfaction in law enforcement? As Barbara Ehrenreich writes in her article about Ice-T’s song, “Black youths know that the police are likely to see them through a filter of stereotypes as miscreants and potential ‘cop killers.’ They are aware that a black youth is seven times as likely to be charged with a felony as a white youth who has committed the same offense, and is much more likely to be imprisoned. They know, too, that in a shameful number of cases, it is the police themselves who indulge in ‘anarchy’ and violence.” Such a question about police brutality and the rights of blacks is a valid question and deserves to be discussed. If Ice-T’s song, or others like it, were not allowed to be produced and heard, would this debate have come up?
Ice-T’s song is very controversial, provocative, and to many, very offending, but, because it is this way, it paves the way of more debate and societal examination. When this happens, society can change in order to fit the need of the people. Restriction of creative freedom would stifle this form of debate and society would not be as flexible. Instead of society changing to fit the need of the people, a restrictive society sets a standard of a model that all of its citizens are expected to emulate. If an individual cannot conform to this mold, they are subsequently censored.
People who argue in favor for restriction of speech believe that hate speech can be as powerful as actions and believe that speech can sometimes be too harmful. Charles Lawrence III, in the essay “Regulating Racist Speech on Campus,” writes, “If the purpose of the First Amendment is to foster the greatest amount of speech, racial insults disserve that purpose. … There can be no meaningful discussion of how we should reconcile our commitment to equality and our commitment to free speech until it is acknowledge that there is real harm inflicted by racist speech and that this harm is far from trivial.” This is true; speech is powerful and can be made to hurt others. But, at the same time, prohibiting certain forms of creative expression just because it is offensive to one group hurts more than it helps. Instead of openly debating works to determine how society should change, it closes the debate and allows nothing to change. True, less people are offended when there is less offending material out there, but is this worth the risk of banning all controversial works of creative expression?
When creative work is allowed to exist uncensored, ideas are shared, discussion begins, and, though some are offended by the many various works that are created, they can at least at least debate about the aspects and shape society with their own words. There will always be hate, but with free unrestricted speech we can identify the problem instead of ignoring it and make an attempt to fix it. This is why the First Amendment was drafted as it was and this is why we should not restrict creative expression to only what we consider clean and inoffensive. Society will change; we must be flexible and strong enough to allow people to speak freely and allow all ideas to help shape it.