Debate Rounds (3)
I look forward to debating with whoever takes the other side.
My stance is that music censorship is acceptable if performed by parents or a private organization. The government has no place in limiting the rights of musicians, and I will explain why later.
Looking forward to an exciting and lively debate.
The main reason, though, for censorship is to protect groups of people prone to violence. If a song has a lyric advocating the lynching of a black man, or the bashing of a homosexual, than they would live their lives in fear. According the Declaration of Independence, we shall have "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
If you have to live your life in fear as a result of offensive, violent music, your right to the "pursuit of happiness" is being obstructed.
No one is forcing anyone to listen to any type of music. As for me, I couldn't tell you any lyrics from any Metallica, SlipKnot, KISS, or Jay Z song all because I don't like the style of music and I don't like what they believe in. So, if I was a homosexual, I probably wouldn't listen to songs bashing what I believe in.
If the song would have lyrics "advocating the lynching of a black man, or bashing of a homosexual", then that is just what the artist feels. For example, I am a Christian and I believe in ONE god and I do not agree with Kayne West saying in a song "I just talked to Jesus." and saying "I am a God". So, because of him saying all of that and going against my belief's, I will not listen to his music because he believes in something I do not.
Furthermore, the original quote was "Life, Liberty, and Property", by John Locke and it was later replaced to "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" in the Declaration of Independence.
For the record, I do not think Kayne is a god, what so ever.
Many people wish to live the lifestyles of their favorite artists; they change their styles, they change their personalities, and they can alter their beliefs if they wish to live like their favorite star. Can't this put certain groups in danger if song lyrics advocate for their harm? Therefore, simply turning the channel or changing the song does not solve the problem if your life is put into danger.
Now, you say that, originally, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" was "Life, Liberty, and Property." I don't see how this changes anything; if it was edited for the Declaration, it must mean that the founding fathers wanted a specific emphasis on this subject.
It's not a matter of changing the channel to listen to what you want and to shut out what you don't agree with. If songs advocate for violence against anyone, than it is putting their physical condition and safety in danger. If we have a right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" why is it right to put people in fear by advocating violence against them?
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.