Granted by the US constitution, our first amendment right allows us freedom of speech. But why is there always an exception? The main reason music is censored is due to the fact that it may offend a gender, race, religion, or personal moral; why do people take such offense? If you disagree with a band or song’s lyrics and theme, then your opinion shouldn’t be changed by someone simply expressing themselves. You can’t make those offensive words vanish from the earth by censoring it. And I do understand that people have feelings that are very important, but the fact of the matter is that not everyone in the world agrees with your exact ideas, and there’s no way for you to change that.
Also, so much of the music that is produced is misunderstood. The world is quick to judge a song’s meaning because of the overwhelming idea of “inappropriate music.” Let’s take for example “Baby one more time” by Britney Spears. Many people believed the song was inappropriately sexual for the average listening age, and some even believed the line “hit me baby one more time” was linked to physical abuse. Now , I am not saying that this song had any monumental influence on the world, it was merely an example of how fast and bias the world will judge music. Please, people just find the real meaning of songs instead of being horrified so instantaneously.
Now onto the world of critiquing. The Constitution also grants freedom of press, and the critics are no exception to freedom or speech either. But ideally a critic’s purpose is to make judgment on the music, not to their own taste, but to the taste of the people in the world. Their job is not to say the music is terrible in any way, but rather list the pros and cons, and make it appealing to people who would enjoy it. Critics who bash a song are entirely unprofessional, and can cause unnecessary controversy