Should certain subjects be banned from media?

[emeraldrafael]

In a perfect world, nothing should be banned, cause the more you ban the more you get to that big brother communist red state of the U.S.S.R. where you get robbed of free expression and are told what is oka nd not oka to talk about.

...

Now I like to believe we shouldnt keep some things from media, but then ou can make the argument that someone can buy public access time and instruct people on how to murder other people and that should be allowed to be talked about.

So Im gonna say maybe. Personally I like the song pumped up kicks despite that we had an almost school shooting at mys chool (wchich really would have been just a murder on school grounds, but I guess that would count).

 

[werty10089]

The media is kind of like an English essay, opinion questions are always accepted, no matter how horrible, but anything that is an obvious lie should not be tolerated. It's strange how in America people can get a lengthy prison sentence for voicing their opinions, yet politicians who openly lie to the public go without trial. That being said, do I like Holocaust deniers? No. But do I accept them? Yes. Everything can and should be tolerated. As long as no one is being targeted or harassed, ect.

 

[davidmc1158_v1legacy]

This is the second thread today where people are saying the first amendment is wrong.

So whether or not you are an American I'd just like to make the point that in the first amendment it states that through rights of freedom of the press, as long as it is not libel or slander, anything is allowed. I'm not usually one to try and defend my government, but I think it's fair to say that we shouldn't change the first amendment. And personally, I wholeheartedly believe that when it comes to censorship it should be at a bare minimum.

This. Also, the right to freedom of speech was put in place quite specifically to protect those things you really DON'T like. The stuff we agree with, we will always try to protect. It is when the strands of speech tick us off and bring out a deep hatred for such speech, that we must not allow our emotions to overwhelm us and let us ban that speech.

As much as I loath them and everything they stand for, I fully support and protect the right to freedom of speech for the KKK, for instance.

Censorship is never the answer. The proper response to bad speech, is BETTER speech.

 

[spartan231490]

I'm sure you're expecting a "Rap glorifies murder!" or "Metal is da devil!" type of argument here but this is actually about this song:


I was listening to my local radio station when a listener on the phone argued that Foster the People's song "Pumped Up Kicks" should be banned because it promotes school shootings. The DJ thought that it was a stupid argument but it took a bit of a left turn. He argued that if any songs should be banned, it was The Band Perry's "If I Die Young" (he did not call for a ban, he is just making an argument here).

His reasoning: It is romanticizing death (think Romeo & Juliet) to a group of individuals (the demographic for a song like this is going to be teens) who are going to be the most likely to consider suicide.

Unlike a school shooting, suicide really does not need much of a plan to put into action. So someone inspired to shoot up a school due to "Pumped Up Kicks" is going to be forced to think about their actions just because it takes time to prepare. A song about suicide and romanticizing death ("Funny when you're dead, how people start listening") could convince the person to take their own life and you really don't need much time to pull that off.

So I was just curious if anyone agreed with this line of thinking. Is there any subject (music or otherwise) that should not exist or is everything free game?

*Notes: No, arguing Justin Bieber shouldn't exist here is not correct, go away. Also, I'm not asking about Freedom of Speech and if they're allowed to do it, obviously they are allowed to. The question is: should they?

A) school shootings don't require planning, they only require a gun.
B) That song doesn't glorify death, it points out the way people interact with it in an odd way. And that's the only lyric that even does that. Most of the lyrics talk about how sad she is to have missed out on so much. That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard, and here's the absolute reason why:
C) SONG'S CAN'T MAKE YOU KILL OTHERS OR YOURSELF. People make those decisions completely on their own. Song's aren't some kind of magic that invade your brain and steal your thoughts. They are just ideas and emotions. They can make you feel, but you, AND ONLY YOU decide This kind of logic that removes responsibility from the person who makes the decision is bringing down modern society. Responsibility is the thing that makes decisions worth making and by extension, life worth living.

 

[Pyramid Head]

I'm going to say no. Yes the song is stupid and calls into question the sanity of the singer, but people have a right to make total asses of themselves in this country. We may wish people wouldn't abuse the right by making stupid things, but trying to stop people from making stupid things through censorship is not the right approach to take.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

-snip-

Funny you should bring up this song. I heard it this morning when I woke up (radio alarm clock), and I thought to myself "hang on a second...seriously? ...Ugh. Stupid song...".

While I do agree that the song is kinda stupid, I DO NOT think it should be BANNED. If we start doing that, it's a VERY slippery slope. Also, no song ever convinced anyone to kill themselves. Yes, maybe if they're depressed and surround themselves with songs like this, it's going to be a factor, but are we REALLY going to go there? I mean, if we do, then we'll end up having to hold GTA and any modern shooter responsible for stuff too. The responsibility for the act falls on the individual, NOT on whatever they used to facilitate/get them pumped for the act.

So yeah, stupid song, but it's not worth banning it.

 

[tippy2k2]

This is the second thread today where people are saying the first amendment is wrong.

So whether or not you are an American I'd just like to make the point that in the first amendment it states that through rights of freedom of the press, as long as it is not libel or slander, anything is allowed. I'm not usually one to try and defend my government, but I think it's fair to say that we shouldn't change the first amendment. And personally, I wholeheartedly believe that when it comes to censorship it should be at a bare minimum.

I didn't say the first amendment was wrong (I even specifically stated that in the Original Post). There's a big difference between someone's right to say something (first amendment) and whether that is morally correct to say something. I'm curious about the moral aspect of this, not whether you have the right to say what you want. Are these things that artists should think about before releasing their work or should they just spit out whatever they want?

A) school shootings don't require planning, they only require a gun.
B) That song doesn't glorify death, it points out the way people interact with it in an odd way. And that's the only lyric that even does that. Most of the lyrics talk about how sad she is to have missed out on so much. That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard, and here's the absolute reason why:
C) SONG'S CAN'T MAKE YOU KILL OTHERS OR YOURSELF. People make those decisions completely on their own. Song's aren't some kind of magic that invade your brain and steal your thoughts. They are just ideas and emotions. They can make you feel, but you, AND ONLY YOU decide This kind of logic that removes responsibility from the person who makes the decision is bringing down modern society. Responsibility is the thing that makes decisions worth making and by extension, life worth living.

The DJ's argument was that shootings require more planning then suicide. You have to get a gun, make that drive/walk to school, figure out how you're going to do it, who are your targets, etc. A lot of time (so planning might not be the best word, it takes time, which is time for them to consider their actions and allow the "high" of the song to wear out). His thought with suicide was that it would take a few minutes, grab a gun, load it, boom, game over.

The song does romanticize death (glorify is not the correct word, that's why I've been using romanticize instead). The entire chorus is her singing about how bitching her funeral is going to be. Being covered in satin, everyone is there, sinking in the river, all of these are romantic views on life/death. The rest is her singing about watching over her family, meeting God, etc.

 

[spartan231490]

This is the second thread today where people are saying the first amendment is wrong.

So whether or not you are an American I'd just like to make the point that in the first amendment it states that through rights of freedom of the press, as long as it is not libel or slander, anything is allowed. I'm not usually one to try and defend my government, but I think it's fair to say that we shouldn't change the first amendment. And personally, I wholeheartedly believe that when it comes to censorship it should be at a bare minimum.

I didn't say the first amendment was wrong (I even specifically stated that in the Original Post). There's a big difference between someone's right to say something (first amendment) and whether that is morally correct to say something. I'm curious about the moral aspect of this, not whether you have the right to say what you want. Are these things that artists should think about before releasing their work or should they just spit out whatever they want?

A) school shootings don't require planning, they only require a gun.
B) That song doesn't glorify death, it points out the way people interact with it in an odd way. And that's the only lyric that even does that. Most of the lyrics talk about how sad she is to have missed out on so much. That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard, and here's the absolute reason why:
C) SONG'S CAN'T MAKE YOU KILL OTHERS OR YOURSELF. People make those decisions completely on their own. Song's aren't some kind of magic that invade your brain and steal your thoughts. They are just ideas and emotions. They can make you feel, but you, AND ONLY YOU decide This kind of logic that removes responsibility from the person who makes the decision is bringing down modern society. Responsibility is the thing that makes decisions worth making and by extension, life worth living.

The DJ's argument was that shootings require more planning then suicide. You have to get a gun, make that drive/walk to school, figure out how you're going to do it, who are your targets, etc. A lot of time (so planning might not be the best word, it takes time, which is time for them to consider their actions and allow the "high" of the song to wear out). His thought with suicide was that it would take a few minutes, grab a gun, load it, boom, game over.

The song does romanticize death (glorify is not the correct word, that's why I've been using romanticize instead). The entire chorus is her singing about how bitching her funeral is going to be. Being covered in satin, everyone is there, sinking in the river, all of these are romantic views on life/death. The rest is her singing about watching over her family, meeting God, etc.

I don't see it. The chorus emphasizes the fact that she will be gone. That she will lose everything she had and that she will have to say goodbye. at least, that's the only way I can see it.

 

[The Funslinger]

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Anything too stupid to be said is sung.

Ah, Voltaire. That crazy (absolutely right) bastard!

No, they shouldn't be banned, because hiding something won't make it go away. Poor taste =/= horrible and should be illegal. That said, the music is pathetic, and glorifying the controversial is just the talentless man's way of garnering attention (usually from angsty/"gangsta" teens).

 

[Colour Scientist]

I wish people would give the population a bit of credit, rather than infantalizing them at every turn.

If your average person listens to 'Pumped Up Kicks', I guarantee you they're not going to shoot up their school.
If your average person goes to a seminar given by a Hitler apologist, they are not going to leave a nazi.

It's ridiculous. Granted, some people are going to be either insane or incredibly impressionable but they are a significant minority. Not worth the censorship.

 

[Eventidal]

Free speech is free speech. We shouldn't be forcefully silencing people because their words have potential negative effects. It's one of those grey areas to be sure, but it's a serious slippery slope in cases like this. Ban any songs about suicide, then people argue that shooting should go too, then violence in general, but not before sex of course, because this is a sexophobic country...
Next thing you know, you say anything not strictly G-rated in public and you're going in for some hard time.

 

[Pegghead]

I think that's a bit silly. If the rest of the world decided to ban references to Australia in their media I'd sorta feel left out.

But woah, I guess pumped up kicks does kind of sound a bit school-shooter-ish...trippy.

 

[Starik20X6]

As much as I love freedom of speech, I'd say the line does need to be drawn somewhere. I think anything that is promoting a message of intolerance, encouraging discrimination and bigotry should at least be restricted, for example. Complete freedom means people can start spewing poisonous hate whenever they like, which, unfortunately, is quite often. I think it's wrong that people like the KKK get to have their own radio stations and broadcast their broken views onto other people because "they can".

 

[Vicarious Reality]

The only thing that can not be allowed to be communicated without punishing the person that communicated it, is propaganda that states that a person should harm another person or their property.

You'd have to try pretty hard to obviously break the law.

 

[ConstantErasing]

I think there is a place for everything in this world. So long as the song isn't actively telling people (in a serious manner mind you) to go out and commit unspeakable acts then I don't see the problem with it. Impressionable kids will be impressionable. You are not going to be able to keep out all forms of stimuli that might make them consider a deed that they are already inclined to do.