What is Freemuse’s position on music that glamorises violence and hate speech?
While it is an anti-censorship organisation, Freemuse does recognise that there may be occasions on which free speech can legitimately be restricted. In general we judge on a case by case basis and are guided by international conventions such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Such documents themselves tend to recognise that there are occasions where speech may legitimately be restricted. For Freemuse to be anti-censorship is not to say “anything goes”.
Who should decide whether certain rap lyrics are acceptable or not?
The real question is why single out rap? In general Freemuse supports artists’ rights of freedom of expression. Artists themselves are in the best place to determine their own lyrical content. However, most major artists need major record company support to reach the market. These companies tend to censor when they think that the product will either not sell or that it may upset its potential customers. There are senses in which the need to profit is the most censorious agent of all.
Speaking on BBC Radio 2 UK Home Secretary David Blunkett said that there was a link between gun violence, Class A drugs and music.
There obviously is a link – in that the content of some rap songs are about gun violence and drugs. But then so are films and literature. The reasons why people get involved in criminal activity are complicated, but the overwhelming cause is poverty – not popular culture. It is always easy for politicians to pick on popular culture and propose seemingly simple solutions, rather than to get to grips with more bigger problems such as poverty and racism.
How is the current situation in the UK? Is the public feeling for censoring?
I think that the Blunkett/Howells affair was a storm in a tea cup. It shows how “censorship” stories can take on a life of their own. As far as I know, there are no plans to introduce any new laws, although Blunkett has spoken of the need to talk to the industry. We may see politicians calling for “responsibility”. This means that it will encourage the music industry to censor itself so that the politicians do not have to dirty their hands. I don’t see any public clamour for more censorship. However, one interesting recent development has been calls from gay activists such as Outrage! to outlaw music which advocates hatred (and physical attacks on) homosexuals. Call for censorship seems to be moving from the political/moralist right to the liberal/left.
In the UK the last example of rap being literally in the dock came in 1991 when NWA’s album “Efil4zaggin” was prosecuted under the 1959 Obscene Publications Act (which applies to England and Wales). The case was unsuccessful and I don’t think that in the future there will be any successful attempts to prosecute records under this Act. There have been calls before for a ratings system for records, but that has rarely been seen as practical. I think this will blow over. However, attempts to censor popular music are often linked to contemporary events and should they take a turn for the worse (e.g should there be war, or should gun crime escalate) then the clamour for censorship will grow. The job of anti-censorship activists should be to put counter arguments and expose each case to the closest possible scrutiny.
