Alright you’ve reeled me in with a
good title, now where is this going? Honestly… I haven’t decided yet. Let’s
just riff for a bit. Satire… that was a word I used in the title. Let’s talk
about that. Satire is an interesting form of art in that the creator can get
away with doing or saying just about anything, as it is not representative of
how they really feel, they are just making a statement about society, and if
you can’t appreciate that, then it is “your” problem. Some people feel that
these “art” works take the joke too far and are simply offensive. This is
probably true in some cases. However, the caveat is that I don’t care. Here is
the beautiful thing about art, in most instances it is completely up to you
whether you wish to consume it. The exception, of course, being the awful
soundtrack playing on repeat at your place of employment. You are forced to
listen to that repetitive, soulless droning day in and day out whether you like
it or not.
So, speaking from my libertarian side, I
say let the satirist make whatever they want, and if you don’t like it, don’t
watch it, listen to it, read it, what have you. But what about my previous
example? What about the art that you are force fed? Should that work be
censored? Could we really allow a risqué painting to be posted on the city
corner for all to see? Think about the children! The answer is, of course…
complicated. I am not going to say we should allow anything and everything to
be posted in public spaces, that would just be grotesque.
Unfortunately, I feel that we have
completely messed up on what material should be censored. For instance, abortion
protestors are waving around graphic signs and shouting obscenities under the
protection of the law, while recording artists cannot use the word fuck without
having to release a whole second version of their album. See the edited version
of this article where I say f*ck if that last sentence offended you. Movies and
music are restricted based on lude content. But this is an instance where I, as
a consumer, can make the choice not to listen to the music or see a film I find
offensive. The music on the radio; I can change the station. The music in convenience
stores; I can abstain from shopping there and let the free market handle its
own.
And the timeless argument is… think of the
children. Certainly we can’t let children listen to music with vulgar lyrics.
Parents should be able to control what their children consume, right? Right!? I
will let you in on two little secrets. One, children are people, not property.
Two, if they want to listen to a song with vulgar lyrics, they will find a way
to listen to it. If you truly believe certain music to be too abhorrent for
listening, instill that in them and hope that they agree. If they don’t,
children are people. They will have their own opinions and make their own
choices and the best you can do is to make sure they have all of the
information necessary to make an informed choice. What’s the best way to make
sure someone has all of the information? I’ll give you a hint, it is not carding
a sixteen year old who wants to see the latest shoot ‘em up film, (not to be
confused with the 2007 film “Shoot ‘Em Up,” although being rated R that would
also work in this example).
So there you go. We talked about satire,
censorship, and respecting your children. And you probably thought this was
going to be about prejudice or something. Don’t you hate when hypocritical
satirists write misleading titles?
-AMS