Free speech is expressing oneself without restrictions. It incorporates any act of receiving, imparting or seeking ideas or information irrespective of the medium used. It is noted that the right to freedom of speech is not without limit in any nation. There are often restrictions given in order to regulate the far with which one expresses themselves without offending or infringing other people’s rights. These limitations include copyright violation, sedition, slander, obscenity and the likes (Costagliola, 2010).
In response to this essay, it is apparent that drawing a clear cut line on what is acceptable and that which is not as pertains to free speech is difficult. I concur with this view since the society is composed of diversity. There are people who view some ideas or actions to be unacceptable in the society while others hold a different opinion on the same. For instance, music is evolving from time to time. It has been noted that there is a constant increase in production of sexual or violent lyrics which a section of the society point out that they negatively affect the listeners. Nonetheless, some sections of the society lovethis kind of music. Consequently, banning that artists and genres from composing and producing them will be denying them their freedom of speech (Tarvyd, 2004).
I totally agree with the argument that the medium used to relay the lyrics to the society should be the one held responsible. Nobody should be denied the right for free speech, but the medium that puts the lyrics to the society to listen ought to choose on what to play for their audience. This way, the people in the society will choose on themselves on what to listen to and what not to. It is throughusing this approach that no one in the society, whether artists or fans, is denied the right to free speech. Artists and genres can choose whatever they want to say in their lyrics and the fans can also select the kind of songs that interest them (Tarvyd, 2004).
In this position paper, an example of Wal-Mart is given that indicates that according to their policy, they will not sell any album that contains explicit contents due to the fact that they are a family friendly chain. In essence, Wal-Mart is also exercising their right to free speech since their policies does not allow the sale of albums with explicit contents. In this manner, there is no artist who will sue Wal-Mart with the claim that they have refused to sale their products hence the right to free speech is exercised (Kane, 2012).
I support the stance taken by this position paper owing to the fact that there is no definitive approach to what can be said to be offensive. Different people and organizations have varied opinions with regard to what can be said to be offensiveor obscene to the society especially in music. Some of the words that are inappropriate to a certain group of people may not be offensive to the other (Costagliola, 2010).
In summary, freedom of speech is not definitive on the exact choice of words to be used. Artists must exercise their creativity when composing for various lyrics without restriction. However, the media used to relay information in the lyrics to the public are the ones which should be selective depending on their policies.
Costagliola, B. I. (2010). Freedom of Speech in Rap Music. Retrieved on 5 April 2013 from http://suite101.com/article/freedom-of-speech-in-rap-music-a258962
Kane, E. (2012). Free Speech also applies to Musicians, Including Nugent. Journal Sentinel. Retrieved on 5 April 2013 from http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/free-speech-also-applies-to-musicians-including-nugent-rq54ets-148613445.html
Tarvyd, K. (2004). Freedom of Speech: Does this Freedom Apply to Musicians? Retrieved on 5 April 2013 from http://www.library.pitt.edu/voicesacrosstime/LessonPlans/documents/FreedomSpeech.pdf