POWER OF THE DOLLAR$

WEEK 1

It is 6:45 on a Friday evening, the jury of seven men and five women enter the courtroom. After deliberating for 23 hours over three days the verdict is read aloud....”NOT GUILTY”! Cheer runs rampant throughout the courtroom. Sounds of joy plague the air celebrating a victory while the stone faced prosecutor shakes his head in defeat. What is going on here? Another Celebrity, Sean “P-Diddy” Combs, has just been acquitted.

With their “NOT GUILTY” verdict, the jury rejected the allegations that P-Diddy, the head of Bad Boy Entertainment, fired a weapon at a nightclub in 1999 wounding three by-standers. They also rejected the allegations that he later promised his chauffer $50,000 and a platinum ring to take the rap. Combs was facing 15 years in prison and the fall of his music, fashion and restaurant empire.

During the trial, jurors were forced to sort through conflicting eyewitness testimony. Three prosecution witnesses said they were certain that P-Diddy in fact had a gun. However, five defense witnesses, including Combs himself claim that his hands were empty at the time of the shooting. With little forensic evidence, the six-week trial produced often contradictory eyewitness accounts from police officers, club goers and Combs.

As the trial progressed, Prosecutor Mathew Bogdanos repeatedly charged that witnesses, including some that he calls, were changing their stories or manufacturing them in order to help Combs. He brought attention to the phone records, indicating that the witnesses had talked with Combs before testifying. However, this was denied on the stand.

After a tiring 6-weeks of testimonies, Combs was announced not guilty indicating another victory for his high profile lawyer Johnnie Cochran. The angry prosecutor said that the case was “rampant with bribery, money, influence and witnesses changing their testimony”. He also warned the jurors that if they acquitted Combs, they would “be adding names to the list of victims in this case”.

It seems to me that it doesn’t matter what crime you commit but what matters is who you are and how much money and power you have. The court system has been made a mockery. Celebrities brush in and out of courtrooms like the wind, never once skipping a beat. It’s becoming a common trend for celebrities now. is MONEY, POWER, and RESPECT truly the key to life. Well, for us maybe not, but for celebrities it IS LIFE!

That just goes to show that money does really talk!

,                       

                                  CENSORSHIP

BLOG 1

Censorship is not a recent development. It has been around since before many of us were even born.

*1950's

Radio stations ban Dottie O'Brien's "Four or Five Times" and Dean Martin's "Wham Bam Thank You Ma'am" fearing that they are suggestive

Producers of the Ed Sullivan show instruct cameraman to show Elvis Presley only from the waist up during his third and final appearance on January 7,1957 because of his dancing

*1960's

Several radio stations refuse to play Ray Patterson's "Tell Laura I Lover Her" calling it the "Death Risk"

New York Bishop Burke forbids students from dancing to "The Twist", considering R&B music and its dances to be lewd and un-Christian

Police attempt to shut down a James Brown concert, alleging the singer's dancing is obscene

An El Paso, Texas, radio station bans al songs performed by Bob Dylan simply because they cannot understand the folk singer's lyrics

*1970's

Several radio stations alter the John Lennon song "Working Class Hero" without the consent of Lennon or his record label

Curtis Mayfield's "Pusherman" is edited without his knowledge for a live appearance on American Bandstand

Radio Stations across the country ban John Denver's hit song "Rocky Mountain High" because they thought that "high" referred to drugs

*1980's

Mercury Records refuses to release Frank Zappa's single "I Don't Wanna Get Drafted"

Roger Wilcher, a Baptist youth minister in Emporia, Virginia, petitions the city council to have MTV removed from the local cable system

Meyer Music Markets places an "explicit lyrics" warning sticker on Frank Zappa's "Jazz From Hell"........even though the song is entirely instrumental

*1990's

MTV refuses to air Public Enemy's video for "Hazy Shade of Criminal"

Protests erupt after Guns N' Roses releases their album The Spaghetti Incident, which contains a cover version of a song written by Charles Manson

An April Indigo Girls concert is scheduled for a South Carolina high schools canceled when the school's principal learns the performers are gay

*2000's

A private school in San Antonio, Texas suspends four students for attending a Backstreet boys concert

After already airing the video for over a month, MTV requests edits in the video for the Bloodhound Gang's "The Bad Touch

The New York Fraternal Order of Police places Bruce Springsteen on the boycott list, and calls for the cancellation of his New York performances, after he debuts a song about the tragic shooting of Amadou Diallo entitled, "American Skin"

So is censorship truly fair?

Censorship begins in the home. If parents instill the proper morals in their children, then they should trust that their children will make wise choices in their music selection.

Sure, this may be MY personal opinion...........But agreeing with censorship is also an opinion. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinions and I totally accept everyone's ideas. However, censorship is being taken far beyond its initial intentions. More than music lyrics are being censored. Our lives are being censored.

So once again.........Is censorship fair?

This is MY VOICE.................UNCENSORED!

BLOG 2

Censorship is nothing more than a good idea gone wrong. What began as a way to prevent children from hearing profane lyrics is now the legalized raping of artists. Artists have been raped by censorship since the 1950's and are still being raped today. Just because society doesn't accept the lyrics written by some artists doesn't mean that it is wrong. Who's to say it is wrong? Me? You? NO ONE! Although many artists do not agree with censorship, they often benefit from it in many ways. Their record sales or ratings go up, they receive more publicity, and often get their music heard more because of society's curiosity.

When an artist has a song banned or has their song censored, they often tend to sell more records. Famed rapper Eminem sold more than half of what was projected in sales when his controversial Marshall Mathers LP c.d was released. Society's youth are the majority of the sales that occur with such "explicit " c.d's. Sure, this may be a problem for parents, however, if children are taught the importance of right and wrong then there is no danger in their children listening to the music. Parents cannot watch their children every minute of everyday so the values that they instill in their children will play a key role in what their children choose to listen to or buy.

If you were an artist you would want to be seen or heard right? Some artists feel that any publicity is good publicity. When artists are exploited by the media for their unorthodox lyrics, they are receiving just what they want-PUBLICITY!

Many artists go overlooked until they end up in the news or any other form of media. Soon after the media devours an artist for a song's lyrical content, the artist always seem to on MTV, BET, VH1.... need I say more! So is this actually helping an artists' career.

When shopping for a new c.d and you come across a c.d that has an "Explicit Lyrics" sticker, does it not make you curious to see just why it has that sticker? That's the case with many people. People are curious as to what that c.d contains to have that certain sticker on it. Does the artist talk about God? Sex? The President? Drugs? Everyone wants to know, so in many cases the c.d is purchased, allowing the artist to once again benefit.

So as we debate about censorship being right or wrong, money is still being made. C.d's are being purchased and publicity is abundant for these particular artists. So I ask, does censorship really matter?

BLOG 3

While searching for more information about music censorship, I came across a book entitled Parental Advisory: Music Censorship in America, written by Nazum. This focuses on the many debatable issues that go along with music censorship. One in particular caught my attention- RACE! Nazum questions the fine line between black & white artists in music censorship.

On May 2, at the First Amendment Center, author Eric Nazum turned many heads when he stated that "Most of today's CDs that carry the Parental Advisory label are from African American rap and hip-hop artists." He noted that a Federal Trade Commission report attacking the music industry used a list of CDs as examples of music considered "bad" for children. Nazum said that " Of the 35 artists on that list, 30 of them were black, and only three of those acts contained exclusively white members".

This isn't an overnight occurrence however. Even in the 1950's music censors believed many different myths such as the one that claimed, "Allowing white children to listen to black music will lead to the mongrelization of America". So how did music censorship come about? Music censorship came up in the mid 1980's when Tipper Gore, wife of Senator Al Gore, bought Prince's hit album "Purple Rain", which contained a song called "Darling Nicky" The song alludes to masturbation, sex and one- night stands. After hearing the song she gathered up a group o Washington's wives and formed Parents Music Resource Group. They met with the Senate in the summer of 1985 with a list of many demands, one in which being the Parental Advisory sticker. By the year 1990 the sticker was placed on albums such as Twisted Sister and the 2 Live Crew.

Shortly after the stickers, the 2 Live Crew's album "Nasty as We Want to Be", which contained the song "Me so Horny", taken from a famous line in the movie "Full Metal Jacket", was deemed offensive. Later rapper

C-BO was arrested by his parole officer who felt that his music broke his parole agreement. Nazum says that " Once you get past the violent overtones and the language you are basically dealing with political protest songs. They are speaking out against your society and what people want to see changed."

So do you feel that music censorship is a race issue?

February 12, 2005

According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, every individual musician is protected by a number of human rights. Like all other human beings he/she has the right to freedom of association, freedom of religion, to family and private life, food, water, shelter and education, among a host of others. Human rights are as important to musicians as they are to the next person. However, two rights in particular are of special relevance for musicians: the freedom of expression and the right to participate in cultural life, Together, they offer a special protection of musicians against arbitrary censorship and persecution,

Music gives human beings the chance to freely express themselves. Their lyrics can be about love, hate, fear, violence and more. A simple verse can tell of joy, sorrow, a dramatic event, a special mood or image of everyday life. All of these different expressions fall under the protection of the freedom of expression in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 19.

Freedom of expression means much more to a musician than it does to an average person. For musicians, freedom of expression particularly implies: freedom to play music in public as well as in private, freedom to give concerts, and the freedom to release CD's. These are their freedoms regardless of which expressions or points of view may be expressed by their lyrics or music. Therefore, no censorship can be imposed or legal steps be taken against musicians because of what they express in their music.

Besides being a form of expression, music is a cultural activity. Even though a song or melody may not express any particular attitude or opinion, the simple access to play music can be regarded as a human right. This is stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 27 about the right to freely participate in the cultural life of the community. For musicians, the right to participate in cultural life particularly implies: the freedom to perform and produce music, freedom to listen to and enjoy music made by others, the right to protection of the interests resulting from one's own musical production, and the freedom for ethnic minorities to play music of their own culture. Unlike the freedom of expression, there are no legal grounds for limiting the right t participate in cultural life. So unless the music contains defamatory lyrics or other expressions which can legally be limited within the grounds of freedom of expression, the right to perform and enjoy music in itself can never be legally prohibited.

Although musicians are protected by theses certain rights, many of them, are unaware that they infact have theses rights. This allows them to easily fall prey to music censorship. However, even though artists obtain these certain rights, they are not being upheld. These rights are being completely ignored and artists are still being unfairly stripped of their rights.

BLOG 5

CENSORSHIP.....HELPFUL OR HINDERING?

Some people feel that censorship is a violation of their rights. On the contrary, others feel that censorship is a must in the violent, abusive world we call society. So who has the right to censor? Who doesn't? What necessarily needs to be censored and what doesn't? The fact of the matter is that here are many pros and cons in the music and entertainment industry about censorship. Personally, I feel that the consumers and views should be charged with the ultimate responsibility of censorship.

In the past, the musician's right to control his/her work was not in question. This has begun to change in recent years, however, as the lyrics top popular music have become more explicit. Is a rap group portraying real life in the ghetto, or a heavy-metal band singing about suicide, protected as a singer's "artistic expression"? Or do these songs really influence society, becoming the sole cause of violence and hate instead of merely an expression of them? Is government censorship of offensive and violent lyrics a way to improve society, or simply a way to control who can listen to them, and who cannot?

By placing the blame on the musicians, we are in some way trying to take responsibility away from ourselves as a people. Also, I resent the fact that he people who vote for and pass the laws prohibiting free speech are taking it upon themselves what they think is moral and right for the rest of the country. I don't know about you but I feel that I can make up my own mind about what type of music I listen to.

Our world is far from perfect. We are a world filled with sex, drugs, racism, and violence. It would seem that those parents are simply trying to protect their children from the outside world. But does it really help? These days, the average elementary school student is aware of many things that their parents would rather be oblivious to their knowledge of. A wide range of sources, from television and other forms of media, to their environment at home and school influence them.

In order for the youth of America to grow up to be productive, capable adults, we must start by teaching them to individually make responsible decisions. It is the responsibility of the parents to instilling these values early on, therefore making it that much easier to communicate with them later on in their lives. I understand that parents are trying to protect their children from the harsh realities of life, but are they really helping.......... Or hindering?

BLOG 6

MUSIC.............THE ANTI-DRUG

Albums with explicit lyrics or content began having black and white parental advisory stickers on them in 1994. Are these labels really necessary? Is controversial music molding our society and causing teenagers to turn to drugs? Is censorship necessary to protect the youth of our nation? Generally, young teenagers are against censorship. Music serves as an outlet and even an anti-drug for many teens; however, parents and society feel differently. Should parents censor their children or should society? Many parents would like to raise their own children and NOT have the government do it for them. Clare Boothe Luce said that" Censorship, like charity should begin in the home; but unlike charity, it should end there".

Society censors music like this because they are afraid of it. They think that it will alter the minds of their children and cause them to do things they would have never done if it were never suggested in a song's lyrics. However, I believe that music mirrors society. It is an expression of what is going on in life. For every person who believes certain lyrics portray a frightening world, there is another person who finds them deep and powerful because that world is all too real.

Although most teenagers feel differently about censorship than their parents, there are some parents who do not agree with censorship. They believe that they should raise their children, NOT some politician who believes that one nasty word will change a child's entire future. Teens use music as an outlet and sometimes to rebel. Music plays a big part in kids growing up. For teens, music becomes especially important, giving a voice to those unable top speak their true feelings. As a response to a national initiative conducted by the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, music was ranked number one as an anti- drug. This came from 25,000 kids from ages 9 to 17.

Most people have seen the Anti-Drug commercials on television by the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America. The kids on the commercials say what they do to keep themselves away from drugs. In one particular commercial the teenager says music is his anti- drug. A number of people say that certain types of music influence teenagers to try and use drugs; however, some kids say the use it as their anti-drug.

I do not agree with the censorship of music. It is the parents' responsibility to decide what their children may or may not listen to. Society and the government are not here to raise America's youth, PARENTS are. Also, an artist's music is an art, an expression of himself or herself and what they have been through. Changing their music changes the art they have created. It's like making Mona Lisa a blonde! I would find it very insulting if I were a music artist, to have my work changed. I do not think that parental advisories help parents at all. For a parent to decide whether or not their child us old enough to listen to a certain music album, they should listen to the album themselves.

Music is an important part of a teenager's life. I know that as a teenager I often use music as an outlet for my problems. For some teens, they are living the music, in a ghetto with parents that have drug addictions. Some may be using music as an outlet when their sweetheart breaks up with them or when they are having a bad day. I believe that censorship infringes our first amendment to the Constitution, freedom of speech. Saying that music artists may not use certain words is the same as saying a newspaper cannot print a certain article in my opinion. Yet it seems that music is an easier target because pro- censorship groups claim that they are "helping the youth of America".

BLOG 7

AFFIRMATIVE VS. NEGATIVE

Censorship is a well-known topic that has been debated for years. While I strongly disagree with censorship I must also acknowledge the opposing viewpoints on the subject. In order to have a strong stance on any debatable topic, one must become familiar with both the affirmative and negative sides. I recently spoke with Mrs. Azalea Howie and inquired about her thoughts on censorship.

Mrs. Howie feels that there is nothing wrong with music censorship. "With all of the violence and profanity, there must be a line drawn to prevent harmful effects", says Howie. On the contrary, I feel that there has already been a line drawn. Parental Advisory stickers represent the line. It warns that the lyrical content on that particular C.D has explicit lyrics.

She went on to say that she believes that "Music has just gone too far. No one sings about the simple things in life anymore. What happened to love songs and songs about life? Now you can't listen to a song without hearing about someone getting killed or a woman being greatly degraded." While I personally do not condone some of the comments made in popular songs, I still believe that an artist has the right to utilize the first amendment. There are a lot of things that one may disagree with when it comes to song lyrics. However, as long as America has the Bill of Rights, no one can stop them from expressing themselves.

When asked she thinks that music censorship infringes on a person's rights Howie said " No. Music Censorship does not take away a person's right to say how they feel and express themselves. It is simply a way to set boundaries. If they were allowed to put that language on the radio and on television it would be exposed to any and everybody. Not just those who buy the C.D. Then there would be much more acts of violence. Censorship must be enforced in order to protect our society".

I respect the affirmative viewpoint, however, I still strongly oppose music censorship. It is never acceptable to take away from an artists' work. After speaking to Mrs. Howie, I understand the opposing side much better but that does not alter my sentiment about censorship. Censorship is a commercialized form of robbery. No one's thoughts should be censored ever. As long as censorship exists no one really has a voice. SPEAK UP AGAINST CENSORSHIP!

BLOG 8

After weeks of researching and receiving feed back on music censorship, I must say that I have learned a lot. Going into this project I already had a general idea about this topic and had a set sentiment about it. However, after really immersing my self into the tons of information I understand it more. I have also grown to understand and respect the ideas of those who oppose my stance on music censorship.

Seeing both sides of the argument (affirmative and negative) allowed me to put more work into strengthening my argument while considering the opposing viewpoint. Although this has been an ongoing debate about whether censorship is right or wrong, everyone has the right to his or her own personal opinion. Even after the research and the feedback, at the end of the day I am still AGAINST music censorship. Yes, it may only is My opinion but I just cannot condone censorship in any way, shape, or form. Keep in mind that I do understand that there may be profane language and other contents in the music. However, no matter what, it is still taking away from a person's art. Why should someone devote their time and energy doing something that they love for it to only be changed by a certain "committee"? A committee who doesn't see the struggles or hard times that may have motivated that particular song. They aren't there when the artist spends hours on end composing a perfecting every detail of their work. So how can they simply tear that foundation down?

Who's to say what is good music and what is bad music? What should be censored and what should not be censored? What may harm children and what may not harm children? Not me or you or anybody else for that matter. It is all a matter of OPINIONS! Just as I am against music censorship there are many people who strongly agree with it. It is our OPINIONS! So when music is censored, it is their opinion that the lyrical content is too strong or unsuitable for children. Only difference is they have the power to prevent someone's art from being displayed as they would want it to be and we don't. Our sentiments are only but silent cries while the government decides for us what is best.

I must say that I truly enjoyed working on music cemsorship. I couldn't have done it without the motivation of my speech and debate teacher, Ms. Deaton, and the wonderful feedback and comments that I received. Doing this blog has made me an open- minded person. I can now see things from many sides, not just mine. Once again I want to say THANK YOU! Remember that we all have a VOICE........SPEAK UP!!!!