In the days following the massacre at Virginia Tech, where a student killed 31 students and faculty members before turning the gun on himself, most people were on edge about the possibility of a similar event occurring to them. College students were among the most affected by the shootings, since they believed their colleges and universities to be a place where people can learn freely, without the problems of bullying and class distinctions that typically plague high school students. Apparently, this is not the case, since one of the reasons that the Virginia Tech gunman cited for his bloodshed was that he was sick and disgusted with all of the rich students on the Virginia Tech campus.
Everyone was talking about this incident because it seemed so unexpected. A junior at the University of Colorado, Max Carson, found that talking about his opinion of the events was not as welcome as everyone else’s. Karson was arrested by Boulder County police officers after making statements during a class discussion where he “made comments about understanding how someone could kill 32 people,” said police Cmdr. Brad Wiesley. According to witnesses, Karson made statements expressing how the florescent light bulbs and unpainted walls made him angry enough to kill people, and that many students were afraid to return to class with this individual.
Following this class, police arrested Karson on suspicion of interfering with staff, faculty, or students of an education institution.
Max’s father believes that this is a clear violation of his son’s First Amendment rights, which allows him the right to free speech, and I agree. I believe that Max was merely expressing the opinions that many of us feel, but do not express because of how they will sound to other people. Were his comments a bit inappropriate and untactful? Yes. Should he be put in jail for them? NO. Is this an instance of censorship that resulted in the revoking of his First Amendment rights? YES.
There is no caveat on the First Amendment that states that all people have to agree with the consensus when a tragedy occurs. There is no evidence that Karson really supported the shooter and that he felt no remorse for the murders of over 30 innocent people. We are looking at one comment in a conversation, which was most likely, a hyperbole of what he actually believes. We cannot look down on this young man for stating his opinion just because it is controversial. The First Amendment is there to protect the speech you don’t agree with, not the speech that is in accordance with everyone else's opinions.
America seems to think that whenever a tragedy occurs, whether it is a school shooting like Virginia Tech or Columbine, or a national tragedy like 9/11, that we are no longer allowed to look at the other side. We are not allowed to put ourselves in the shoes of the criminal, trying to figure out why committed these atrocities. It is fine if we want to think about it on our own, but should we voice these opinions, we are ostracized for being insensitive and setting off alarms of those who become overly paranoid.
This level of paranoia was also seen at a University in Oregon where a student was barred from a vigil for the Virginia Tech students because he wore what appeared to be an ammunition belt. The belt, made from spent bullet casings confiscated from the student, is a popular fashion accessory, and not something that can be considered a weapon. Granted, this probably was not the best choice of attire when going to a vigil for a group of people who died in a school shooting, but he was probably wearing it all day and didn’t think twice about it. Again, this is an instance where we become too afraid of what may happen, that we take people’s rights of expression away from them.
It is a terrible thing what happened at Virginia Tech, but we cannot be afraid of talking about it however we please. If the student’s comments were that out of line, then the teacher should have spoken to him in private, asking him to explain to the class what he meant. There was no need to get the police involved, giving this young person a police record, for a comment that was probably taken out of context.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Russell Simmons and the Fight against Hip-Hop
Hip Hop mogul Russell Simmons recently made a bold statement on the Oprah Winfrey show which called for the cleaning up of lyrics in rap and hip hop music. Specifically citing the dreaded ‘n-word,’ Simmons believes that there is a war of racial tension in this country, especially when it comes to language and who can use racially charged language. Simmons believes that African Americans use the ‘black right’ of using these derogatory terms too much, and are lessening its historical implications.
Simmons stated on a radio talk show that “I think it’s ok to take the n-word, bitches and ho’s off the radio and rap records, but what I’m asking for is another level of corporate responsibility from the radio and record companies, not from the artists themselves.”
Simmons is largely regarded as one of the founders of the hip hop movement through his work as the CEO of Def Jam Records, one of the preeminent rap labels, which he founded with producer Rick Rubin in 1984. Since then, Simmons has become the moral voice in hip-hop; the one that everyone turns to when anything goes wrong in the hip-hop community. Simmons has been looking to clean up the state of rap music for a long time, and this latest urge comes in the wake of the Don Imus scandal. Simmons believes that this scandal would not have even happened had the music been cleaned up.
Imus calling the Rutgers University Women’s Basketball team, “nappy headed ho’s” was completely out of line, but these words are frequently used in popular songs all the time. If rap music complied by a set of regulations, would this event ever have happened?
I believe that Russell Simmons is not trying to censor rap artist’s expressions, because he knows where they are coming from and understands the language spoken on the streets. What he is trying to do is eliminate the linguistic dichotomy that exists in America, where it is ok for one group to use a certain set of words, but when someone else uses those same words, in the same context, it become a big deal. Hip hop and rap music are a humongous part of our current popular culture and is no longer seen as an art form that only African Americans can appreciate.
The regulations that Russell Simmons and the Reverend Al Sharpton are proposing will ultimately help American society. When these contested words are taken out of the discussion, the overall quality of rap music will go up, and there will be fewer cultural debates about the social implications of this genre.
This is an instance where censorship is necessary. We need to do something about the demeaning language and derogatory phrases used in almost every popular rap song. These regulations will not only decrease the racial divide in America, but will also challenge rap artists to express themselves in a more intelligent way. It seems that the only thing an artist has to do these days to make a hit record is to insult women over a catchy hook. This is not what the creators of rap had in mind for this art form and it should not remain this way. When hip-hop began, it was about telling the story about life on the streets and about the hard times they were facing; it had a message. Simmons is not aiming to censor young talents, but he wants to challenge them to bring these messages back to hip hop music, and not perpetuate these stereotypes that continue to damage the reputation of the hip hop community.
In order to get equal respect from the mainstream media, the hip hop community needs to embrace these regulations, and not look at them as a form of censorship, but as an opportunity to grow as artists and to bring people together.
Simmons stated on a radio talk show that “I think it’s ok to take the n-word, bitches and ho’s off the radio and rap records, but what I’m asking for is another level of corporate responsibility from the radio and record companies, not from the artists themselves.”
Simmons is largely regarded as one of the founders of the hip hop movement through his work as the CEO of Def Jam Records, one of the preeminent rap labels, which he founded with producer Rick Rubin in 1984. Since then, Simmons has become the moral voice in hip-hop; the one that everyone turns to when anything goes wrong in the hip-hop community. Simmons has been looking to clean up the state of rap music for a long time, and this latest urge comes in the wake of the Don Imus scandal. Simmons believes that this scandal would not have even happened had the music been cleaned up.
Imus calling the Rutgers University Women’s Basketball team, “nappy headed ho’s” was completely out of line, but these words are frequently used in popular songs all the time. If rap music complied by a set of regulations, would this event ever have happened?
I believe that Russell Simmons is not trying to censor rap artist’s expressions, because he knows where they are coming from and understands the language spoken on the streets. What he is trying to do is eliminate the linguistic dichotomy that exists in America, where it is ok for one group to use a certain set of words, but when someone else uses those same words, in the same context, it become a big deal. Hip hop and rap music are a humongous part of our current popular culture and is no longer seen as an art form that only African Americans can appreciate.
The regulations that Russell Simmons and the Reverend Al Sharpton are proposing will ultimately help American society. When these contested words are taken out of the discussion, the overall quality of rap music will go up, and there will be fewer cultural debates about the social implications of this genre.
This is an instance where censorship is necessary. We need to do something about the demeaning language and derogatory phrases used in almost every popular rap song. These regulations will not only decrease the racial divide in America, but will also challenge rap artists to express themselves in a more intelligent way. It seems that the only thing an artist has to do these days to make a hit record is to insult women over a catchy hook. This is not what the creators of rap had in mind for this art form and it should not remain this way. When hip-hop began, it was about telling the story about life on the streets and about the hard times they were facing; it had a message. Simmons is not aiming to censor young talents, but he wants to challenge them to bring these messages back to hip hop music, and not perpetuate these stereotypes that continue to damage the reputation of the hip hop community.
In order to get equal respect from the mainstream media, the hip hop community needs to embrace these regulations, and not look at them as a form of censorship, but as an opportunity to grow as artists and to bring people together.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)