Censorship, By Any Other Name...

Lady Gaga's newest music video for her most recent #1 single, "Telephone" has brought an interesting array of attention to the issue surrounding what many believe to be the fine line between art and the Constitutionally obscene.

While the video is certainly intended for mature audiences only, it still baffles me that people believe they would do society a service by banning the video all together. Take a look at this interview from Fox News:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kud17cXaajo

Sandy Rios, of the Culture Campaign, goes as far as to say that this type of provocative entertainment is "poison for the minds of our kids."

First, it is necessary to point out that the video had multiple warnings against the "violent" nature of the short, even forcing it to air in the late night TV slot. This was an obvious effort by the E! network to avoid backlash as demonstrated by harsh words of Sandy Rios.

Second, regardless of whether or not people want their children to be exposed to the messages inherent in the video, banning it altogether would violate the First Amendment provision of the U.S. Constitution allowing for the freedom of speech. Lady Gaga, as an artist, has every right to express herself, no matter how gory or provocative her ideas may be.

Third, the idea of access is an important concept to consider. When early jurisprudence on obscenity began emerging, the Court determined that there were three tiers as defined under the Miller Test to evaluate whether or not a work held Constitutional protection:

1. "Whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest;
2. "Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law;
3. "Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" (413 U.S. 15, 1973).

The music video violates none of these provisions - it is not pornography, by any means, and so there is no Constitutional basis for any of Rios's claims. And to this end, the video is not forced unto anyone's TV or computer screens; it must be sought out, so viewing it is a personal choice and not in the face of the American populace.

I find it a travesty in American politics when people like Sandy Rios appear on national television advocating for the censorship of the artistic expression of a pop-icon. While she may personally find Lady Gaga's style and method of expression offensive, she is certainly out of line when implying (through her call to outlaw the video) that her personal opinion should be valued above anyone else's. Perhaps instead of worrying about her children's exposure to the harsh realities of freedom of expression, she could devote that energy to a worthwhile cause, like fighting hunger in Africa.