I am referring to "Lil Wyte" Should people be allowed to rap about anything they want? sure they all use swears like ***** and the "F" word. But are his songs OK for society? All he ever talks about drugs and its the real deal. Some people may say its music and people can say whatever they want, while others may say that kids can hear this his songs and be influenced. His most recognized song "Oxycontin" is doing pretty good right now, but whats that saying to everyone who listens to it? http://www.youtube.com/v/wfMLtj6qSsc&hl=en&fs=1 http://www.youtube.com/v/wfMLtj6qSsc&hl=en&fs=1 Get my point?
I disapprove of RAP because of the high amounts of swears and threats involved but I feel that even though I want RAP to die already, it should not be banned for language and racism. If people really wish for Rappers to stop teaching racism and swearing an harsh critisism in their music, then they'll start a protest about it but swearing shouldn't get a Rapper banned.
I didn't say swearing. I said do you think they should be able to talk about drugs as much as he does, giving children, and teens the ideas.
Yes sorry I forgot to mention drug use in songs but I disapprove of swearing and drug use. Sorry for the misunderstanding. But you did mention a little bit about swearing but let me sum this all up. A rapper should be able to sing about anything he wants and get away with it no matter how much I hate to say it.
Yeah, i agree with you. but it should be watched just encase. Seeing as most other types of music do not go as vulgar as some rap.
As much as I discourage the use of drugs, it should be kept under freedom of speech. If you rule out one aspect, others are subject to it, which is a major flaw of the system. Exactly why you have to keep everything minimized. In the end, it's all up to the parents in what their kids are listening to. I mean, look. Specop listens to Cannibal Corpse. That is why he's such a douche. His parents obviously didn't filter his music, hence the douchebaggery. Although it is getting harder for parents to filter their kids' online activities due to a wave of apathy. They can access pretty much anything short of world domination from the internet, so why bother? Some artists prefer singing about their hobbies or interests. Any connotation of a song can be taken the wrong way. So why stifle these artists' creativity? We shouldn't.
The easy answer to that question is... yes. People should be allowed to rap about anything they want. I think your question could be worded better to attack what it is you have a problem with. Maybe something like: "should children be exposed to points of view that might have negative results if they take them seriously". That gives the conversation a chance to actually yield any useful results. You can't attack the problem by going after freedom of expression. It's too important in the bigger picture, and you can't go around making exceptions for it. That being said, virtually all music worth a damn is a product of drugs anyway. I'm not just talking about music influenced by drugs... there's plenty of music that overtly celebrates drug use. That's been true for decades. Why is it a problem now when it comes from rap?
ANARCHY! REVOLUTION! That's my two cents. (And yes, those two words clearly display my opinion, so don't be all like 'Spam! lololol')
Just like game, movies, and anything else there is a rating and if parents don't want them to listen to it, they would know. And it's not just rap that has a influence, what about Led Zepplin?
I plead the first. This shouldn't even have to be disputed. Censorship by individuals and organizations is legally fine, but if the government could do the same, they're breaking their agreement of the people, outlined in the Constitution.
Ufortunatly the framers F***ed up and gave us all freedom of speech which means anyone can say anything and anything can be said by anyone legally...PLUS the constitution says you have freedom of incrimination which means i could say all over the news i smoke pot and not get arrested. But I agree with Whisper this one time and say we should go all anarchy on the feds and take control then abolish all rap that is annoying.
There you go again with that racism. You obviously don't understand anarchy. Anarchy isn't about taking control for yourself. Anarchy is about no rules, no laws.
Government cannot ban music under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has interpreted the free speech clause of the First Amendment to make it almost impossible to ban music. Governments can place reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on music to make sure that children are not subjected to overtly sexual or violent lyrics. But any such restrictions must not unduly burden adults who wish to receive the music. I cannot think of a single instance where the government has ever banned a CD. If it ever happened, I'm sure the courts would reverse that ban very quickly. What does frequently happen is private groups put boycott or other pressure on retailers to stop selling music with certain offensive lyrics. Private groups are perfectly free to organize boycotts or other forms of economic pressure against retailers for whatever reason they like. Those actions are also protected by the First Amendment. Government also has the ability to prevent broadcasters from permitting offensive lyrics from being broadcast. Courts have granted the government greater power broadcast media under the argument that unlike other speech, broadcast can only support a limited number of broadcasters. Therefore government has the right to regulate speech of the broadcasters in order to ensure that everyone can enjoy receiving broadcasts without being offended. Personally, I think it was a mistake for the courts to give government that power over broadcasters, but they didn't ask me. As for why the government is so controlling. Politicians get pressure from certain groups, particularly religious and seniors to restrict or limit offensive lyrics. Despite the First Amendment, politicians are most concerned about being re-elected. Therefore, most of them will focus on doing whatever keeps their key constituents happy. Since seniors and members of religious groups vote in much larger numbers than teens or civil libertarians, politicians are much more likely to support the more conservative position on these issues. But as I said, in most cases, this does not involve an outright ban. It involves restrictions such as warning labels or broadcast limits on such music. But what I mean when I say it's not protected by the First Amendment is, It is not protected in the court system. Hate speeches Also.
Private groups, and even politicians, really have no power over what is played and where (as long as they don't own the copyright and it's not noise pollution).
Hell yeah. I don't care if they rap bout there bitches and hoes. I can rap about plants and my gardening hose. That's why america is kickass. lol umm ya I just hate people that like rap music cuz they think it makes them look tough
I know what anarchy is and I didn't use it best in context but it is still clear i knew what it ment and how is that racism?
Because you're a racist. And it wasn't clear that you knew what anarchy means, because you used it totally wrong.
This thread is targeting rap, I listen to punk, songs about drugs and violence are frequented by me. But no, you all have to target rap because you don't like it. If a child starts taking drugs because there's a song about it, there's something wrong. Games and movies have drug references/use in them, why not songs?