FantomLord17 wrote:
@Ill-Starred Son: Heh, I got the feeling that the part about freedom of speech would get misunderstood. My mistake.
What I meant is that, in the extraordinary case a band writes lyrics that promote a criminal or harmful act and could be linked to the act's realization (say, an anti-christian/satanist band writes lyrics explicitly promoting church burnings and influences individuals to do so*), how could they face the consequence of promoting this antisocial behaviour AND still respect freedom of speech? That's a question I don't have a satisfactory answer for. I definitely wouldn't promote censorship as it only attack symptoms and not causes, but rather promote whatever would make us not ever need that kind of measures: Why did the band write lyrics with such a negative message? Why did this negativity bleed over the listeners and may have incited them to a harmful behaviour? It's a complex social/psychological issue, and as important I think it is to ask ourselves and others these questions, it would never get completely resolved. What I can do, as just another individual, is just not listening to them, and expressing my disagreement as Pfunter said. Who knows, maybe this dissatisfaction eventually gets to them and makes them question what their band stands for.
@Kveldulfr: I agree with you. Not because one listens to lyrics about x topic means one believes them. Lyrics could be violent yet if you like the music they would actually boost your mood, or maybe the lyrics are about suicide but might help you coping with your pain through catharsis, for example. There's not a causality relationship between the lyrics message and the listeners behaviour, but they would still be an influence. A tiny influence, but many tiny influences from different sources could add up and affect someone's behaviour, and that's something that, in my opinion, bands shouldn't dismiss.
I just think sometimes (metal) bands don't really give a fuck about their lyrics and go the lazy route of writing what's conventional of their particular scene, and that can speak a lot of themselves: If you don't make an effort with your lyrics, then maybe you don't give a crap about your music, and if you don't, why should I lose my time listening to you when there are many bands out there writing better music and actually have something to say? And by the way, I'm mostly thinking of satanist/gore/etc. lyrics when I say that, as in case you were to half-ass your lyrics these would be "safer" in the male dominated metal scene than, say, writing about your feelings while risking someone calling you sissy or something immature like that. But it does apply to every derivative, faceless, mediocre band.
So, that was my long-winded explanation for disliking the kind of lyrics I dislike
*Yes, I consider church burning to be a completely negative and punishable act, but I get some could disagree. It was just what came to me for an example.
Well, I don't know how to multi-quote so I am just going to focus on the one sentence that I think is important here, which is this quote you made:
"how could they face the consequence of promoting this antisocial behaviour AND still respect freedom of speech?"
First, the way you phrased this sounds slightly odd and I am guessing english is not your first language, so did you mean:
"how can they face the consequences of promoting this antisocial behavior WITH THE PUBLIC STILL RESPECTING THEIR FREEDOM OF SPEACH??"
I think that's what you meant.
And the answer I have is: There should be absolutely NO consequences whatsoever if a band writes lyrics about RANDOM church burning (the RANDOM part is ESSENTIAL here) and then one of their fans goes out and burns a church.
They did not FORCE their fans to do this, they wrote about it and the fan was stupid enough to go do it and that responsibility falls 100% on the shoulders of the arsonist/fan.
The only time that I think lyrics go beyond "freedom of speech" in our culture is when a SPECIFIC act of violence is condoned.
Like, as opposed to writing lyrics that say "you should burn churches", which is fine, the lyricist writes "I want our fans to burn down the 3rd Methodist Church on Seventh Avenue".
THAT is crossing the line because a SPECIFIC target has been mentioned, and they should be held responsible in that case.
That is how our laws work, at least in the United States.
Likewise, I think many years ago Boby Count with Iced-T wrote a song about killing Tipper Gore's daughter (I am NOT advocating this action, I am CONDEMNING it, in case big brother is watching haha).....and he got in trouble for that and I think the song was banned as it should have been.
You can write lyrics about killing people, but the second a SPECIFIC target is mentioned, that goes beyond freedom of speech and impinges on the rights of the person being threatened.
You can write a song called "fire in a crowded building", but you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded building as it puts people to risk.
Beyond DIRECT verbal threats, freedom of speech has no bounds and should not ever.
I have had this conversation with people who aren't big metal heads and I never understand why they think bands like Cannibal Corpse for instance are "insane" for writing about killing people, yet they NEVER point the same fingers at Stephen King for writing sick movies with murder.
There is no difference between writing a song with violent lyrics as there is in writing the script for a movie or a book with violent actions, or making a painting with a violent act being depicted, and it is no more "Sick" to do that, than to write a violent song.
All of these artists are protected by freedom of speech.
Does that answer your question??
FAQ
Register
Login
