Recording Artists and Publications Are

¶ … recording artists and publications are free to express themselves however they want because they are given the right to do so under the First Amendment, simultaneously arguing that they should also use this right responsibly because of position in society.

The author's main goal is to convince the audience: "Everyone should be able to voice their opinions, however, they have a responsibility to not push boundaries when they express it." This argument is hypocritical in and of itself because while the author contends that people are given the right to free speech, he/she sets out to impose limitations on what can, or should, be said. It is difficult to get past the thesis statement and continue reading the essay because of the author's extremely flawed argument.

I believe that it is an artist's responsibility to push boundaries and force the audience to consider things they would not usually consider. The role of the artist is to bring awareness to an otherwise unaware public. That is the reason why so many protests songs exist. Simply because someone does not agree with the artist's social or political views does not mean that the artist is abusing his or her position as a role model.

In the paper, the author contends that it is often difficult for an individual to interpret what is or is not acceptable, and while this may be true, who is to judge what others can or cannot say. The author cites a Guns N. Roses song, "One in a Million," arguing that its lyrics are offensive because they are derogatory towards minorities and homosexuals and ends his argument by stating that, "As an artist, especially a very successful one like Guns N.

Roses, it should be their responsibility to maintain a level of respect for society," which I highly disagree with. Guns N. Roses have never publically announced that they intend to be socially responsible, nor have they publically accepted their position as a social role model. Through this song, Guns N. Roses were expressing their personal beliefs and experiences.

I am also very confused by the author's decision to switch over to talking about the impact a Danish publication had especially because it did not relate to music and it did not deal with issues in the U.S. While the author intended to demonstrate the power of the press, he/she should have chosen an example applicable to the U.S.

Moreover, the author appears to confuse a political cartoon that deliberately sets out to polarize the audience with traditional art, which sets out to be a tool for an artist's expression of thoughts, beliefs, and experiences. The concluding paragraph is fraught with hypocritical inconsistencies. The author began by claiming that the First Amendment gives individuals the right to free speech and yet, he/she set out immediately to determine what an artist could and could not say, and what they should and should not say.

Furthermore, in this last paragraph, the author advocates censorship by stating that the public should let controversial works of art "fall under the radar," which makes it appear as though the author is advocating that an artist's work needs to be buried if it is deemed to be controversial. The author also claims.