ese songs that ramble on with graphic descriptions of murder, torture, and rape. Sam Brownback, author of an article called "Free Speech: Lyrics, Liberty, and License" has a different idea about what should be done with todays vulgar lyrics. Brownback will not interfere with the constitutional rights of people, but instead wants to get these artists to think about their works and influence them to change their lyrics on their own rather than censor them (Brownback, 456). Changing the minds of songwriters and performers is a good idea to begin with, but not the best idea. Brownback is trying to be the "nice guy" in this debate. He does not take into consideration that trying to change the minds of these artists is not an easy task. What would be easier is a tighter handle on what should be allowed and what should not be allowed within the music industry. Censorship of indecent lyrics is in order. Who decides what is descent and what is not? This is a very good question when considering censorship. Eric Boehlert is appalled by the idea of censorship. His full argument in an article "Culture Skirmishes" revolves around the main point that the law is vague and that it is hard to get a consensus about what is offensive (Boehlert 29). The answer to the decision of decency is not very clear, but that does not mean that Americans should leave music alone. One solution to this problem is to take into consideration a couple of questions with each song: 1) are these lyrics harmful to the songs listeners by influencing violence? 2) are certain words, like bitch, necessary to make a song successful? 3) do these lyrics reflect a violent culture over all? When answers to these questions point to being harmful, unnecessary, and violent, then it is obvious that censorship should come into play. Although some will still argue that censorship is still unconstitutional, it remains a necessary component to the decline of violent influence on music listeners...
