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...

The author also claims that if a work is already in the public sphere, they need to find a way to fix it, which is almost impossible because it is highly unlikely that there will be a unanimous consensus about what should be done, especially if the artist and the public are at odds.
Ultimately, I feel this is an ineffective paper because it sets out to limit what an artist can and cannot say, and aims to censor art if the public deems it controversial. While it is true that highly recognized artists are more likely to make waves socially, it is also important to take into account the previously existing values and beliefs of the audience and not insinuate that they will follow the artist's line of reasoning simply because they look up to them.