Columbine, Marilyn Manson, and moral responsibility in media

Censorship -- Pro

The First Amendment has been part of the Bill of Rights since the creation of the Constitution in 1789. It was created to ensure that people would be able to express their ideas, whether they be political or religious, without fear of repercussion from the government. The Amendment would create a country where people could practice their own religion without fear of persecution like their ancestors did in England. The Amendment has protected the country from descending into various forms of censorship. Members of the press can publish information and opinions about political leaders and others without being stifled should their opinion make someone in the political arena look bad. However, there is also a darker side to the First Amendment. The right to peaceful assembly and freedom of speech has been used to ensure that books about pedophilia and child molestation can be published even if they are designed to enflame. Anti-Semitic and racist speeches can be uttered in public because they are protected. The First Amendment gives people the freedom to say whatever they wish. In recent times, this has been the only part of the Amendment to matter. Some argue that there should be exceptions to the First Amendment. Yes, people can say what they wish or congregate peacefully or print the truth, but they must also be held accountable for their actions. Freedom should be equally met with responsibility. The Supreme Court ruled recently that the Westboro Baptist Church, a group focused on homophobic, anti-Semitic, and hate centered protest, had the right to protest at the funeral of a soldier who died in Afghanistan and make statements comparing the fallen soldier to a murderer. Some people are beginning to wonder if there should be limitations to the First Amendment.

In his article following the Columbine High School shooting in Colorado, musician Marilyn Manson defended himself and other artists who supposedly influenced the killers. He does however admit that a great part of the problem with violence is the fact that young people are perhaps too knowledgeable about the larger world. This article is not to be taken as a valid argument against censoring material. In one point, Manson explains, "This kind of controversy does not help me sell records or tickets." This indicates a very mercenary perspective of the issue. Obviously censoring Manson's music would not help him sell records either. In the article, the author actually makes a point against himself. Manson writes: "Now America has become one big mall, and because of the Internet and all of the technology we have, there's nowhere to run. People are the same everywhere." Now Manson uses this as an excuse for his own responsibility. Unwillingly, he makes the point that there is too much negative information and negative perspective out in the world. It can reasonably be assumed that this point is made because children are in fact, definitely influenced by the information they receive from the outer world.

Censorship has a negative connotation, but really it ensures that children and other young people are not exposed to material which could psychologically damage them. In his article entitled "The Morality Police," author Charles Taylor is obviously against censorship. Like Manson, he blames the parents and the individuals and tries to minimize the dangers presented by irresponsible media. He even ignores scientific findings which have shown "a causal link between violent entertainment and violent behaviors" (Taylor). Science has proven that kids who watch violent material or listen to violent music or play violent video games will be less sensitive to violence in the real world. Consequently they will be more likely to become involved in acts of violence themselves. In trying to excuse violent media, he considers violence to be a somewhat normal part of existence. He claims the innocence of a couple suspected of raping and murder their infant child and that other violence is normal. Taylor even goes so far as to say: "I'm willing to bet that most teenagers, at one time or another, have fantasized about blowing up their school or cocked a finger at some kid making their life miserable and made a shotgun noise. The adults who see such actions as alarming evidence of corruption are the ones who live in a dangerous fantasy world." Frankly, this quote is frightening in and of itself. No. It is not normal for teens or children to consider murder. No, it is not normal to make shooting actions. Adults who are concerned are not fantasizing but realizing that such a teenager is not the norm, but is in fact very likely contemplating seriously enacting some sort of violence against others. There is a reason that teachers are trained to look for such behaviors and to demand that parents and student seek help if they indicate the likelihood for committing violence. It is not the norm.