Censorship

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America gives people freedom of religion, press, and expression. Also, it gives people the right peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for injustice restoration. Since the controversy of music and arts has become a big issue in this day. People who have different opinions and see the issues from different lenses of music fight against each other for their opinion. Music and art can’t be doubts because we are protected by the First Amendment. The controversial that become issue are painting, musical lyrics, and dancing.

In 1999, the Brooklyn Museum of Art had an exhibition with a controversial painting. Chris Ofili, a young English painter who had African roots, made a painting called The Holy Virgin Marry, using elephant excrement and obscene pictures cut from adult magazines. Mayor Guiliani and some Catholics more offended by the painting. They believed it was disrespectful for Catholics and The Virgin Marry. Guiliani threatened the Brooklyn Museum Art that he would take away public funding if they kept the picture in the exhibition. The Brooklyn Museum Art wanted to challenge him by keeping the painting in the show. The censorship wasn’t successful because it was against the first Amendment. Joan Bertin, the head of the National Coalition against Censorship, supported the Brooklyn Museum Art also. She thought that the community had the right to make the decision about what they want to see or not. The government is not allowed to take away financial support just because it was offensive for some of them. I agreed with Joan Bertin because I believe the Amendment gives us the freedom to express our religion into the art.

This controversy is not only shown in painting, but also in musical lyrics. In 1980, CBS records released the song with controversial lyrics. Ozzy Osbourne, an English singer-songwriter for Black Sabbath, wrote a song with the title Suicide Solution. It’s a heavy metal song that had the lyrics “[g]et the gun and try it shoot, shoot, shoot”. John McCollum’s parents were offended by that song because their son, John, committed suicide with a handgun while he was listening to Ozzy Osbourne’s music. According to the McCollums “the lyrics poem, tones, and rhythm” of Osbourne’s music had the collective power to push someone to hurt and to kill his or herself. And furthermore that both sides, CBS Inc and Osbourne, deliberately created musics for the immature people who are have a problems with their youth. The McCollums wants to punish Ozzy Osbourne and CBS Inc. Because of the death of their son, the McCollum’s brought the case to the Court, but were not successful. McCollum’s appealed to the higher California Court of Appeals and their decision was a same as the first court. Both Courts decided that Osbourne has the Constitutional right to put the lyrics to his music. And the Courts, agreed that none of Osbourne’s musics could be described as a literal suggestion to commit suicide. They also said that “musical lyrics and poetry” should not be read literally. Rational people know that they can’t interpret lyrics and poetry in literally because music is expressions people. Osbourne has constitutional right to express his feelings. I agreed with court’s decision that we can’t translate music lyrics to the real word because music has a figurative meaning. Music is expression of the people who writes the song, and we are all protected by the First Amendment. We have freedom of expression.

The controversial of arts not only show in painting and music, but also in dancing. In 2005, Jogjakarta, one of the cities in Indonesia, wanted to perform at the “culture center” of Java. Ainur Rokhimah, an Indonesia artist, who had a stage name Inul Daratista, performs “drill dance” or sexy dancing, which consists of intense rotation of the hips and definitely showing sexual action. The Indonesia Ulemas Council, Indonesia Muslim Council, was offended by her performances. They interpreted her dancing as pornographic and they said her performances were legally forbidden by Islamic law and moreover were disrespectful for Muslim people. The Indonesia Ulamas Council wanted to ban her shows. In addition, she was prohibited for doing her performances anywhere in Indonesia because it was offensive to Muslim people. The censorship wasn’t successful, however, because seventy eight percent of Indonesians supported Inul’s right to freedom of expression. Now, she is be able to continue her performances. And I agreed with that decision because dancing for performances are expressions of our feelings and it’s nothing to do with a religion even if the majority are Muslim.

People can have different opinions, but they can’t against fight each other to stop someone action because of their objection. We have the right and freedom to express our feeling. As long the expression does not directly cause immediate crimes, we in the USA are protected by The First Amendment.