by Jacqueline Dodd

Created on: September 10, 2008

I generally try not to read the other articles written on the topic I've chosen to address before I've thought out and written my own piece - mostly to discourage myself from subconciously being influenced by someone else's work - but I don't need to read a single one of the 'No' articles under this title to know that most of them are going to touch on freedom of speech. I want to stay away from harping on that as much as I possibly can, but the fact of the matter is that that is exactly what this whole debate comes down to. We live in a country in which we are allowed to have and express our individual thoughts and opinions and I am thankful for that every day. What would happen if we lived in a world in which someone was appointed to monitor everything we think and say and censor the things he or she deemed inappropriate? Of course we'd end up having cleaner songs on the radio - in fact, there'd be no need for edited versions of songs at all - and the Tipper Gores of the world would be ecstatic, I'm sure, but where would the line be drawn? Once you give someone that kind of power, it's hard to take back. And would it stop at the lyrical content of the music we listen to? It might start that way, yes, but once zealous supporters of this kind of censorship saw the effect it could have on the music industry, they may very well push for censorship in other areas. Film and television would be at the top of the list, I'm sure. Next thing you know people's personal blogs would be shut down for containing objectionable content. Where would it end?

I know that the above examples were extreme, but so is the idea of taking away an artist's freedom to speak his or her mind. Ultimately, that is what art is all about. A true artist takes what they think and feel and they do something with it - they write a song about it, they paint a canvas, they write a poem, they perform a monologue. They create something from those thoughts and feelings and they release it into the world for other people to enjoy, understand and - most importantly - relate to. To allow an artist to think something but stop them from sharing it with the rest of the world would cause the death of art and I don't want to live in a world like that. Moreover, who decides what is and is not moral? Such things can greatly vary from one person to the next. Some people believe that sex before marriage is immoral, for example, and others do not. Who would decide which view is right and which is wrong? Nobody has

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>