Sensitive Censors

The ubiquity of uniquity

Steve Kurtz from the July 1994 issue

(Page 2 of 2)

The uniquity argument against flag burning continues to smolder. In late March, the New York State Assembly approved a resolution urging Congress to propose a constitutional amendment prohibiting wanton destruction of the American flag. "This is not just a symbol or an icon," explains New Rochelle Democrat Ronald C. Tocci. "It is the embodiment of everything that America stands for."

Just as defenders of Old Glory see flag burning as a unique attack on patriotism and all that is good about America, critics of gangsta rap view this form of music as a unique assault on decency and authority. They claim the music is a combination of profanity, misogyny, and violence with its own particularly ugly gestalt. They say it hurts an already oppressed community. The NPCBW's Tucker has even thrown historical conspiracy into the mix: "For 400 years, profit has come before principle as African Americans bore the brunt of slave masters' degradation. Who owns the companies that put out all this garbage? From what I hear, the record industry is demanding in their contracts that these messages of degradation be in the music of the artists."

Perhaps Tucker is right. Maybe gangsta rap is the one great exception to the First Amendment. That would make it just like hate speech, pornography, and burning the flag. So much for uniquity.

Comments

nfl jerseys|11.17.10 @ 3:35AM|#

tjdtud

log in or register to reply

منتدى العرب|3.9.11 @ 9:42PM|#

Thank you

log in or register to reply