query: Classification, not censorship  We should expect fans of an art form that is subjected to public criticism and vilification to leap to its defence. Some of these aficionados- whether the medium in question is cinema, fine art or pop music- make the case for the value of their favourite mode of expression by overstating its positive effects.  Hip hop has long been the focus of controversies surrounding violent music. Hip hop is closely associated with low-level criminality, as noted above. A number of highly successful hip hop artists have been attacked or killed as a result of feuds within the industry and links between managers, promoters and criminal gangs.  As the academic John McWhorter has pointed out in numerous [1] publications [2] , the positive political and social impact of rap music has been massively overstated, as a result of highly charged media coverage of hip hop-linked violence. As a result, attempts to address some of the hips hops most objectionable content- lyrics that are misogynist and blankly and uncritically violent- have been condemned as unjust assaults on the right to free expression. Attacks on negative content in hip hop have been made all the more emotive, because they appear to be an attempt to restrict the speech of members of vulnerable and marginalised communities.  Side proposition agrees with McWhorter that listening to music that contains violent themes will not, in the absence of other factors, cause individuals to behave in a violent way. However, the content of rap, and its strong links with the youngest inhabitants of marginalised, stigmatised urban areas mean that it damages the developmental opportunities of teenagers and young people, and harms others’ perceptions of the communities they live in.  Hip hop trades on its authenticity – the extent to which it faithfully portrays the lived experience of the inhabitants of deprived inner city areas. The greater the veracity of a hip hop track, the greater its popularity and cache among fans. Musicians have gained public recognition as a result of being directly involved in street crime and gang activities. 50 Cent, a high profile “gansta” artist owes his popularity, in part, to a shooting in 2000 that left him with 9 bullet wounds [3] . This supposed link to reality is the most dangerous aspect of contemporary hip hop culture. Unlike the simplistic make-believe of, say, action films, the “experiences” related by rappers are also their public personas and become the rationale for their success.  Rap, through materialist boasting and sexualised music videos tells vulnerable young men and women from isolated neighbourhoods that their problems can be solved by adopting similarly nihilistic personas. The poverty that affects many of the communities that hip hop artists identify with does more than separate individuals from economic opportunity. It also confines the inhabitants of these communities geographically, politically and culturally. It prevents young men and women from becoming aware of perspectives on the world and society that run contrary to the violence of main stream rap. With television dominated by the gangsta motif, marginalised youngsters are left with little in the way of dissenting voices to convince them that hip hop takes a subjective and commercialised approach to the lives and communities that rappers claim to represent.  In effect, controversial hip hop is capable of sponsoring violent behaviour, when it is marketed as an accurate portrayal of relationships, values and principles. Under these circumstances, adolescents, whose own identity is nascent and malleable can easily be misled into emulating the exploits and attitudes of rappers [4] .  Side proposition advocates the control and classification of controversial forms of music, including but not limited to hip hop. Consistent with principles 1 and 10, classification of this type will follow similar schemes applied to movies and videogames. Assessments of the content of music will be conducted by a politically independent organisation; musicians and record companies will have the ability to appeal the decisions of this body. Crucially, the “ban” on music containing violent lyrics will take the form of a categorisation scheme. Content will not be blocked from sale or censored. Instead, as with the sale of pornographic material in many liberal democratic states, music found to contain especially violent lyrics will be confined to closed off areas in shops, to which only adults (as defined in law) will be admitted. Its performance on television, radio and in cinemas will be banned. Live performances of restricted music will be obliged to enforce strict age monitoring policies. Online distributors of music will be compelled to comply with similar age restrictions and intentionally exposing minors to violent music will be punishable under child protection laws.  This approach has the advantage of limiting access to violent content only to consumers who are judged, in general, to be mature enough to understand that its “message” and the posturing of singers does not equate to permission to engage in deviant behaviour.  [1] McWhorter, J. “How Hip-Hop Holds Blacks Back.” City Journal, Summer 2003. The Manhattan Institute.  [2] McWhorter, J. “All about the Beat: Why Hip-Hop Can’t Save Black America.”  [3] “What’s In a name?” The Economist, 24 November 2005.  [4] Bindel, J. “Who you calling bitch, ho?” Mail & Guardian online, 08 February 2008.

positive: living difference house would ban music containing lyrics glorify Crime and deviance existed in marginalised communities long before the creation of pop music or hip hop. Side proposition is attempting to claim that a particular genre of hip hop is harming efforts to improve living standards and social cohesion within these communities.  Many of the problems associated with poor socialisation and a lack of social mobility in inner city areas can be linked to the closed, isolated nature of these communities – as the proposition comments correctly observe. However, these problems can be traced to a lack of positive engagement between these young people and wider society [1] .  Violence may be discussed or depicted in popular culture for a number of reasons, but it is still comparatively rare- especially in mainstream music- to celebrate violence for violence’s sake. Violence is discussed in hip hop in a number of contexts. Frequently, as in British rapper Plan B’s single Ill Manors, or Cypress Hill’s How I Could Just Kill A Man, descriptions of violent behaviour or scenarios serve to illustrate negative or criminal attitudes and behaviours. These forms of conduct are not portrayed in a way that is intended to glorify them, but to invite comment on the social conditions that produced them. As the opposition side will discuss in greater detail below, the increased openness of the mainstream media also means that impoverished young people can directly address mainstream audiences.  Proposition side contends that the impression of the world communicated to potentially marginalised adolescents by pop culture is dominated by the language and imagery of gangsta rap. Proposition side’s argument is that, in the absence of aggressive and negative messages, a more engaged and communitarian perspective on the world will flourish in schools and youth groups from Brixton and Tottenham to the Bronx and the banlieues. By controlling access to certain hip hop genres, young people made vulnerable and gullible by the desperation of poverty will supposedly start to see themselves as part of the social mainstream. Nothing could be further from the truth. Why? Because efforts at including and improving the social mobility of these young people are underwhelming and inadequate. Social services, youth leaders and educators are not competing to be heard above the din of hip hop – they are not being given the resources or support necessary to communicate effectively with young people.  The nurturing environment that proposition side fantasises about creating will not spring into being fully formed if hip hop is silenced and constrained. The existence of an apparently confrontational musical genre should not be used to excuse policy failures such as the disproportionate use of the Metropolitan Police’s stop and search powers to arbitrarily detain and question young black men.  [1] “Keeping up the old traditions.” The Economist, 24 August 2003 .

negative: living difference house would ban music containing lyrics glorify Hip hop is a diverse genre. The quote that opened this discussion is taken from a song by the English surrealist rapper Scroobius Pip. His albums cover themes entirely different from those found in “gangsta” rap. Similarly, artists such as MIA, Optimus Rhyme and the Wilcania Mob have used hip hop to discuss the conflict in Sri Lanka, computer games and life as a member of the aboriginal community in Australia. Each of these artists share a single common link. They all cater to a relatively niche market and have encountered little in the way of mainstream success.  Rappers who write lyrics about cynicism and aggression- from Slim Shady to JayZ- have recorded numerous number one tracks and attracted a wide range of industry accolades. In 2006 the founder of Death Row records, a major gangsta rap label, was found to have assets valued at $7 million. It is clear that rap discussing crime and violence is the dominant genre within hip hop. It is clear that there is a significant popular and public appetite for rap of this type.  As the comment opposite notes, there will always be a need for classification boards, as gratuitous or pornographic content will always form a significant part of the media landscape. Moreover, despite efforts to control access to such content, pornography and wilfully violent movies continue to make money. Hip hop appeals to a similar market – individuals seeking to indulge violent fantasies via the safe, sanitised environment of their iPod’s headphones, as discussed above.  There are no nuances of context and meaning to discuss in gangsta rap, only potentially damaging content that, at best, should be regulated and monitored.

negative: living difference house would ban music containing lyrics glorify Modern policy making does not rely on the force of law to bring about social change. This is an archaic approach to addressing the harms and deficiencies that might appear in communities.  We can reasonably assume that any ban on violent lyrics will be linked to wider reaching education and information campaigns that attempt to address misogynist attitudes and violent crime. Concerns expressed above that other hip hop genres, and musical innovation in general, might suffer could be adequately countered by offering subsidies and support to non-confrontational forms of hip hop. In this way legal regulation and policy interventions could help the music industry to address the more pernicious aspects of hip hop, while promoting its more innovative side. This reflects the state’s role in promoting and safeguarding free speech, by giving those who do not have access to public forums the means to have their voice heard, while ensuring that the principle of free speech is not abused or used to limit the liberal freedoms of others.  These contentions adequately address the problems that the opposition side links to the distribution of illegal and unregulated content via the internet. The implication that a ban on music containing violent lyric might increase piracy is irrelevant – states will still act to address all forms of piracy, and measures taken against the violation of copyright online will be just as effective against prohibited content.

negative: living difference house would ban music containing lyrics glorify Banning one type of hip hop is not an effective way to intervene in a market that is in danger of dismantling itself.  Governments are not record companies. They are not in a position to make nuanced judgements about the content, meaning and themes of singles and albums. In short, the state cannot be relied on to understand when a musician has produced a work of violent fantasy, or a piece of social commentary with broad appeal.  The state can perform a positive correction for inequalities and failures in the hip hop market by subsidising niche or experimental performers, in the same way that is provides financial support to opera, theatre and the fine arts.  The policy that proposition side seem to be advocating, however, would only do further harm the reputation of hip hop. Once officially censured by the state- which is still seen as a significant moral authority- it is likely that the public profile and popularity of hip hop will be further damaged. The ambivalent position of hip hop in popular culture, as both a commercially successful medium and the subject of wide scale condemnation, is a significant opportunity for the medium, rather than a spectre of its imminent demise. However, larger record companies will be more likely to disengage from hip hop culture if they believe that their businesses affairs might be compromised by intrusive government legislation.

negative: To ban music that encourages violence against women would be done with the intention of protecting women; if it is necessary to paint them as the victims of violence that they are, that is a small price to pay. Furthermore, bans on child pornography would  Many of those who argue that censorship of music depicting violence towards women would be a bad thing do so on libertarian grounds. That is, they believe that to restrict the creation, circulation and consumption of this type of music would result in a restriction of people's freedom of speech/ expression. As some people enjoy and relate to the type of music that depicts these images, to deny people the right to listen to this music is to unfairly restrict their enjoyment and marginalise their tastes.  Some people take this further to say that morbidity is part of the human condition. A consequence of our highly developed brains is that we become very conscious of our mortality, we become fascinated with violence as well because it is so closely linked to death, and we all want to understand death, we all want to know what happens after we die. So people end up seeking different ways of dealing with their fear of death, and one common way is desensitizing ourselves to the idea, perhaps through subjecting ourselves to an environment awash with death, i.e. music that depicts violence. This obviously extends to the creative aspect of humanity as well. We all spend a lot of time thinking about violence, so it is not really surprising that the most creative of us end up making art about it. From paintings, to music, to theatre, we are obsessed with violence in our entertainment, even gratuitous violence. We have famous painters like Francisco Goya who invoke gruesome violence for effect1 and who also receive critical acclaim; Stanley Kubrick won an Oscar nomination for directing A Clockwork Orange, a movie rampant with violence, sexuality and misogyny. Both these examples show violent art which have had both critical and commercial success. Therefore for the proposition argument to successfully defend the banning of music depicting violence towards women it would seem that we would equally have to ban films and paintings that display similar themes. This would result in a huge restriction of expression and society would potentially loose a vast amount of creative output. Furthermore from the examples given above it would seem that a ban would go against popular desire.  1 Francisco Jose de Goya. 'Saturn Devoursing his Son.' Wikipedia.

negative: Reality television forces us to analyse our own behaviour as a society  Reality TV actually has a lot of value to our society; they are effectively anthropological experiments, allowing the public to study people and societies from the comfort of their living rooms1. Humans are endlessly different and endlessly interesting to other humans. In these programmes we see people like us faced with unusual situations. Shows like Survivor, which place a group of strangers in remote environments, make us think about what we would do in their place, and about what principles govern human behaviour in general. It also shows us people who look and act very different from us, and helps us see that actually we have a lot in common with them. MTV's reality show 'Making the Band 2', a 'hip-hop American Idol', gives centre stage to inner-city kids who would be portrayed as criminals or victims on a cop drama. There is nothing immoral about reality shows, merely the society which demands them; these shows are just a product of our values and desires. We should face up to these issues rather than censor television in order to hide them. 1 Sanneh, K. (2011, May 9). The Reality Principle. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The New Yorker

negative: Music depicting violence against women encourages men (and women) not to respect women.  Asha Jennings began a boycott of misogynistic music in hip-hop, resulting in the 'take back the music' campaign supported by essence magazine. Jennings claims that this type of rap/ hip hop music is 'telling people [black women] are bitches and hos and sluts and not worthy of respect [...] And that's exactly how society is treating us'1. She continues that images of women 'tends to be objectified, degrading, very stripper-like' or as nagging vicious and manipulative money grabbers1. Jennings' worry is that in these videos women are depicted as menial, subservient and purely as the object of men's entertainment. The lyrics that go with these music videos compound these ideas of women as undeserving of male respect e.g. 'wouldn't piss on fire to put you out' (Eminem), 'Then I straight smoked the ho [...] and she thanked me' (NWE) (All lyrics in full are in the scrapbook). These images in themselves are violence towards women, as they dehumanise them. As this becomes a dominant image in society, young people who look up to these rappers mimic their behaviour and believe it is ok to disrespect women,2 as that is what they have been exposed to. This works in the same way for young girls, who cannot relate to the male rappers and so instead mimic the women they talk about, while also following their views on women. This idea that women are not deserving of respect must affect the levels of violence towards women as if you abuse someone you cannot fully respect them. Therefore if music depicting violence (and for this argument, disrespect) towards women was banned, then violence towards women in the real world would be reduced and this must be seen as a good thing.  1 CNN, Hip-Hop Portrayal of Women Protested, 2005  2 Burnham, L. Nightmares of Depravity. Durland 21 June 1995.

negative: Music depicting violence to women causes and sustains the cycle of violence.  Music depicting violence to women causes and sustains the cycle of violence. The Scottish Home Affairs correspondent Lucy Adams reported in 2005 the levels of domestic abuse committed by 16-18 year olds grew by around 70%. One of the reasons suggested for this dramatic raise is the culture of music that depicts and glorifies violence towards women [1] (heraldscotland.com). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology reports that a study conducted in a variety of US states illustrated that music that depicted acts of violence 'led to more aggressive interpretations of ambiguously aggressive words, increased the relative speed with which people read aggressive vs. nonaggressive words, [...]The violent songs increased feelings of hostility without provocation or threat'. Although they are quick to assure that it is NOT the music type that has this affect, it is simply the lyrics, as even humorous aggressive songs have this effect. They conclude with the idea that 'Repeated exposure to violent lyrics may contribute to the development of an aggressive personality' and thus lead to more aggressive behaviour. While currently there is little to no research specifically on the link between domestic violence and lyrics that depict abuse to women, the current information that we have on violence and music lyrics suggests we can expect a similar effect. Thus if we were to ban music depicting violence towards women, people could not be influenced by it and levels of violence would drop.  [1] Adams, L. Why rap drives teenagers to domestic abuse; Songs blamed for 70-per cent increase in young victims. Herald Scotland 7 October 2005

negative: It would be easy to apply restrictions on music.  We already give films, DVD's and games an age appropriate rating. In the United States, the Motion Picture Association of America is charged with the responsibility of providing ratings to consumers [1] .  It would seem that it would be simple to stretch these criteria to a similar music body. Therefore people would only be subjected to violent lyrics when it is deemed they are old enough to hear or buy this material, and it would stop younger people from being exposed to this kind of music. This also means that no new state-run institution needs to be created; it would operate, like the MPAA, independently of government control. As such, claims that any form of music censorship would suffer from practical problems are short-sighted, we simply need to extend the medium that already exists.  [1] Motion Picture Association of America

negative: arts human rights thbt social disgust legitimate grounds restriction artistic We are no less able to consent to art than we are to every other manifestation of individuality in society. We are similarly unable to consent to, but strongly impacted by, all sorts of things, from music videos and adverts to people dressed strangely on the street.  However, as a society we accept that people’s core values ought to be robust enough to survive challenges in the public sphere: we allow debate, art and music on many topics that have enormous personal ramifications, from euthanasia to deportation.  As a consequence, it is only legitimate to restrict the worst excesses, whose impact can be measured objectively, before display: we set rules in this regard restricting the worst instances of, for example, exploitation and pornography.  Further, those who are worst affected can self-limit their exposure: it is rare that people are entirely unaware of the existence of a controversial piece of art, and as such people can choose not to view it, or to view it only briefly. They should not have the right to prevent everyone else from seeing such a piece.

negative: It would be highly impractical to ban this music glorifying violence.  There are many reasons it would be impractical to ban certain types of music: First, who would choose what music counts as inappropriate and on what criteria? This would include concerns such as the Rolling Stone's song, 'Brown Sugar' which depicts sexual violence towards a slave by a slave owner (see scrapbook). It would be up to this censor to assert whether this song is highlighting and mocking a distressing moment in history, or whether it is glorifying this incident or merely describing it with no moral judgement. The censor would also have to then choose which of these where fitting reasons to ban the song. This is just a matter of opinion and thus no-one can be unbiased in making a decision. If this is true then it seems that no-one should have the right of it over someone else's opinion.  Second while there could be a ban made on recording or selling songs that depict violence towards women, or prohibit them being played on the radio, with current technological advances it would be very difficult to enforce a total ban. Music is widely available on thousands of websites via video/internet radio etc. More basically, music is a very communal activity and people may sing in crowds or to each other. Country songs (as a genre) have one of the highest percentages of music depicting violence towards women, and these songs tend to have an oral history. Thus even if there was a ban on new songs being recorded, these old songs would continue to be heard and new songs may be heard to a smaller audience. Thus people would still be exposed to these lyrics of women being abused in music.  The final reason it would be difficult to ban music that depicts violence towards women is that this runs a risk that this will only encourage musicians to write such songs, which become more popular for being 'forbidden fruit'.

negative: To ban this type of music encourages the viewing of women as helpless, victim figures.  Many feminists criticise the idea of banning music that glorifies violence against women, as they perpetuate the idea of women as helpless victims who cannot cope with male criticism or violent language. One such group of people are 'power feminists'1 These power feminists believe that by complaining that men are depicting violent language towards women, and attempting to get this banned, the gender stereotype of women as a victim is reinforced; thus undoing any feminist progress that tries to assert men and women are equals. Power feminists believe that instead women should take this language in hand, assert/ defend themselves and retaliate in order to state that women are equals to those who produce this violent music.  1 Campbell , R. L. Part I: Power Feminist or Victim Feminist? 24 March 2004.

negative: None of these arguments pose a significant problem. While setting criteria may be difficult and there will always be cases where it is a matter of interpretation this is not a reason not to create a strict and detailed set of criteria. There could be an appeals process to make sure that a song is not banned based purely on one individual's opinion.  That a ban on recording and selling the music could be avoided through pirating or songs being passed down orally does not matter as if this was happening the ban would already have enough of an impact. The ban does not have to be totally comprehensive in order to have the desired effect of reducing violence towards women simply that it prevents many people listening to the music. The audience would be reduced to a tiny minority and those who remain would be aware of the lyrics as they would have to specifically seek out the music rather than simply being exposed to it with little thought of what it may contain.  Finally there is unlikely to be a large forbidden fruit effect, some people may want to try it in order to find out what it is like. But unlike for example drugs there are direct substitutes that would be almost exactly the same but without the violent lyrics so there is little point in going to the extra effort to get illegal versions.

negative: Musicians have, for some time, been awarded poet status. Early in his career Bob Dylan was described as being “as good as Keats [an early 19th Century British poet]." [7] Musicians must be allowed the chance to develop their poetic style and be recognized for their lyrical writing skills.  Rap gives the listener an insight into the plight of the artist. It shows the harsh conditions in which people live and gives a voice to those that we otherwise might not hear. William Blake’s famous poem ‘London’ is often described a social protest, a voice of discontent with the conditions of life in 1790’s London. Rap does the same thing; social protest, put to music, and designed to describe the racial and economic inequalities that exist within society. Rap, even with its sometimes offensive lyrics reflects the society the artist sees and it should be accepted as it is.  We must not judge the poetry on the basis of the poet’s life Dylan Thomas, Wales’ national poet, was an adulterer and an alcoholic. However, this does not make his poetry any less worthy.

negative: This is empirically false  Again, the crux of opposition counter-argument is that the evidence in this regard is strongly behind opposition.  In April 2011, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission undercover shopper survey found that video game retailers continue to enforce the ratings by allowing only 13% of underage teenage shoppers to buy M-rated video games, a statistically significant improvement from the 20% purchase rate in 2009. By contrast, underage shoppers purchased R-rated movies 38% of the time, and unrated movies 47% of the time.  Given that children are able to easily access violent content in other visual media, and there is no evidence that video games are more harmful than other media, this argument falls. Further, there is a long tradition of exposing children to extremely violent content in the form of fairy tales.  Further, with greater education regarding the harms of videogames to parents (and with more parents having played video games themselves) many are becoming savvier about appropriate restrictions on their children’s video game play. Given the lack of evidence that video games are clearly or uniquely harmful, but acknowledging society’s interest in protecting vulnerable children, investing in additional parent education is a more logical response than attempting to ban all violent games. [1]  [1] Federal Trade Commission. FTC undercover shopper survey on enforcement of game ratings finds compliance worst for retailers of music CDs and the highest among video game sellers. News release, 20 April 2011.

negative: Children See Violent Video Games  Whilst it might be agreed that violent video games in the hands of a person who is old enough to see them and be able to understand the context in which the violence is being wrought is acceptable, this may not be true of younger people who acquire games.  Games with violent content are often easily acquired by players too young to purchase them. They may also gain access to them at home from older siblings. Because children do not have fully developed mental faculties yet, and may not clearly separate fantasy from reality, exposure to violent games can have a large impact upon children. This has a greater impact than children seeing films that feature realistic violence because whilst a child might get bored with films owing to the lack of interaction with the medium, this is much less likely to be the case with, for example, a military shooting game, which a child might play over and over  As such, all violent video games should be banned to prevent their acquisition by young children either by accident, or owing to parental ignorance. [1]  [1] Anderson, Craig et al. The influence of media violence on youth. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2003, 4:81-110

negative: The 'Slippery-Slope' Argument  Banning music that glorifies violence is at risk of the 'slippery-slope' of censorship, which occurs on two levels. Firstly that while music depicting violence towards women may be banned for the best intentions, this censorship may end up extending to other unpopular pieces of art, literature, film or news stories. It may follow that once music depicting violence is banned, that definition of violence may be expanded, afterwards that it is easier to ban songs that contain a political message as there is already precedent. While it is unlikely that it would ever be carried to such an extreme this could continue, until simply anything that is disliked by those in control of the banning is prohibited. It may also discourage people to say or publish expressions of their own for fear of them being considered pornography and being prosecuted1. Equally likely would be the spread of such bans to other forms of media as mentioned in opposition argument one.The second concern of the 'slippery slope' argument is that banning this type of music may cause a stagnation of creative output as people are scared to produce any music that might be considered offensive. This might result in no new styles of music being created and thus styles of music may begin to become torpid.  1Schauer, Frederick F, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982)

negative: Rappers; modern day poets  Many people believe that rap is a form of modern day poetry and as such it should be taught in schools [4]. Sir Andrew Motion, Professor of Creative Writing at Royal Holloway, University of London, said that: “Poetry is a house of many mansions. It does pupils a disservice only to tell them things they already know. Rap has its own challenges and opportunities – but so do many other kinds of poetry, many of which are neglected in schools." [5] However, many rappers use lyrics that are homophobic, violent, sexist, and promote violence and crime. To teach rap in schools is to give a voice to these values and expose children to views that education must not support. [6]

negative: A legal transaction is the only way to achieve free exchange of value  Because the artist made the music, it is their property, in this case “intellectual property”. Property means that the owner/artist has the right to ask something from you in exchange for you gaining access to the music. This may be money. It may also be the requirement that you clearly recognize the artist’s moral right to always be mentioned as the creator of that music. This is called the “free exchange of value”, and this is the most fundamental relationship in our free market economy.  Whatever the artist chooses as payment through a legal transaction, it is his/her basic right to ask this of you. The only way to make sure that he/she can actually exercise that right is by making sure you only take music from the artist through a legal transaction, i.e. with their permission. Only then can we be sure that the desired free exchange of value has taken place

negative: However, while freedom of expression is definitely an important concept to consider, such freedoms can only go so far. When it comes to language that promotes violence then freedom of expression is no longer sufficient reason not to ban something as a physical harm outweighs the right to freedom of expression. Many countries such as Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India ban hate speech because it has severely damaging effects injuring people's dignity, feelings and self-respect and potentially promoting violence.1 Similarly, if we accept the arguments in the proposition arguments above, and we believe that this type of music can be harmful, then it seems that perhaps freedom of speech can be over ridden in order to protect those that this music injures (i.e. some women). Furthermore the banning of music which glorifies violence towards women may perhaps overtime lead to people's attitude toward this style of lyrics changing, and therefore any harmful attitude that arise from it may begin to be unacceptable by the majority.  1 Liptak, Adam, ‘Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.’, The New York Times, 11 June 2008

negative: This type of music is degrading to everyone, not just women.  While music depicting violence towards women appears on the surface to only demean women, it can be offensive and degrading to a range of people. One popular culture reference to a situation like this comes from the British television show called The Office, in the episode 'Merger'1. In this episode the character David Brent tells a racist joke and while this did not offend the black character present, many other characters were still offended by this joke.  People may be offended by the ideas behind the music, as it seems that people who glorify violence towards women in song appear to think that this violence is acceptable. Men could be offended by these ideas just as much as women might. As songs like this become 'mainstream' in some cultures, everybody in that culture becomes affected by it, and some men and women may feel degraded by this association. Finally some people may argue that the person who writes and/or sings lyric that depict violence towards women degrade themselves in this act.  1 DailyMotion. The Office (U.K.) - Explaining a Joke. Retrieved August 23, 2011.

negative: The false distinction between “violent” and “non-violent” crime  Distinctions between violent and non-violent offences are not useful when deciding which offenders should be imprisoned and which should receive more lenient, rehabilitative sentences. The severity of a crime can only be defined by its context and consequences, not by semi-arbitrary labels such as violent and non-violent.  All forms of criminality, and not just violent crimes, can have disturbing and traumatic consequences. The effect of a robbery on the physical health and psychological stability of an elderly person can be as pronounced as the effects of a violent assault on a healthy young man.  It is disingenuous to claim that the nature of a criminal act can be separated from that act’s effects on a victim. As the widely known common law maxim states, a victim should be taken as he is found. A reasonable adult citizen will not be excused from responsibility for what he knew to be a harmful criminal act simply because he did not foresee the extent or type of harm he would do.  A judicial system that takes the concept of proportionality seriously should be free to decide that the consequences of a robbery committed against an impoverished, frail widow should result in a more severe sentence than a teenager’s impulsive attempt to shop-lift alcohol.  Similarly, the outcome of a wide ranging financial fraud is likely to be more harmful than the outcome of a fist fight between two drunken football fans.  Judges are allowed to exercise discretion so that they can adapt the broad rules and objectives of sentencing to the nuances of each case brought before them. The context and consequences of criminal activity should inform sentencing decisions, not an artificially narrow definition of “violence”.

negative: No 'slippery slope' situation exists. It would be clear that the ban only applies to music that glorifies violence. This is not a justification that could be infinitely expanded to cover more and more music and art. It could not be considered a precedent to ban music with a political message as most political messages do not promote violence.  Far from stifling creativity it is likely to stimulate it. Artists would need to find new styles of music and would attempt to find ways around the ban while still keeping their music as near to its previous style as possible.

negative: It’s true that musicians have to eat, too, but it’s not true that downloading cuts their income. Most of the money spent on music goes to record companies, not to artists, from each retail CD sold the artist only gets between 3 and 10%. [1] Those record companies have been keeping musicians on a leash for decades, paying them less than they could. They paid them enough to make sure they would remain fulltime musicians, but not so much that they didn’t bother to create new albums. So if downloading music files means record companies miss out on some income, we shouldn’t feel bad about it.  [1] Information is Beautiful, ‘How Much Do Music Artists Earn Online?’, 13 April 2010,

negative: As noted above, the consequences of non-violent crimes can be just as damaging as those of violent crimes. More over, non-violent criminals can also present an immediate danger to society.  The cost of constructing a prison is outweighed by the benefit of preventing individuals from committing crimes. Rehabilitation programmes are not a panacea – they are not instantly or reliably effective. Even if an individual refuses to engage with any rehabilitative activities in prison, they are still restrained from engaging in further criminal activity.  Consider the senior members of organised criminal syndicates. These individuals may only be involved in using deceptive accounting or front-companies to conceal the activities of their colleagues, but by doing so they enable and encourage multiple violent offences.  Similarly, drug dealers may create conditions in which social deprivation and family break-down flourish. As noted both above and on side proposition, these same conditions can cause others to turn to criminality. In this instance, drugs dealers can present a danger to their communities, and an obstacle to the rehabilitation of addicts. Arguably, the most effective solution to this particular form of criminal behaviour is the removal of the dealer from that community.

negative: Language and subjectivity  “Blasphemy” is a very subjective term. The cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed referred to above were regarded by many as blasphemy, but to others they were a form of incisive commentary. (Badkhen A. 2006). Side proposition seems content to trigger a prosecution for blasphemy based on ideas of offence that might be confined to only a very small group of religious believers. Indeed, it is extremely difficult to determine how wide spread a sense of offense must be before a comment moves from being insulting to actively blasphemous. Zororastrian, Bahai and Yezidi religious communities exist in vanishingly small numbers in the UK, but members of each of these faiths have been subject to continual historical persecution. Should their experience of victimisation entitle them to more robust protection than the (relatively) large and wealthy Anglican church? Similarly, should the size of these communities mark them out as vulnerable, and deserving of some sort of legal advantage that allow them to more easily access the protection of anti-blasphemy laws?  Religious groups can often become divided over the correct response to attacks and crises. If the guiding principle is what the recipients of a certain type of speech will find offensive, that will vary widely from person to person even within the members of a certain religious group. Legal responses to this conundrum would run the risk of appearing to be arbitrary and failing to properly represent the diversity of views within a religious community. Further opportunities for division and dissatisfaction may also arise during the process of making a complaint and assisting the prosecutors pursuing it. Cases will, necessarily be heard in public and will require participants to repeat the slanderous and controversial statements that caused such offence, possibly spreading them amongst a wider audience. The public nature of court cases may even make them attractive to individuals who wish to draw attention to offensive views linked to particular religions.  This is problematic, because it would fail to provide guidance to citizens with respect to what the law requires of them. Blasphemy prosecutions would offer only the most cursory and indirect forms of redress to alleged victims of blasphemy. Moreover, discussions over the handling of blasphemy prosecutions would likely produce division with religious communities. Many believers might be reluctant to see the blasphemous statements that caused an official offensive reaction repeated in court.

negative: Violent video games can cause psychological disturbances  Multiple groups contend that the interactive nature of computer games considerably blurs the line that separates fantasy from reality1. As a result, game players are likely to become psychologically disturbed by the violence contained within these products. It is conceivable that many young gamers will view the new age of video games as fair depictions or representations of reality, real-world themes, real-world personalities, real-world violence. Because violent video games frequently develop and an exaggerated level of violence and destructiveness, they may arouse a belief that in a "scary world". If this is true, a greater level of fear and paranoia can be expected from such gamers in the real world than is justified. This may have the potential to lead to many adverse social effects from these gamers, such as social disengagement.  1 Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. J., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A. (2004). The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviours, and school performance. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Jounral of Adolescence

negative: Musicians have to eat  Apart from the moral reason, there is also a simple societal reason why it is wrong to download music without permission. The reason is that musicians have to eat, too. Suppose you are an up-and-coming young musician thinking about what to do with your future. You can either become a full time musician or take up a job. If you become a fulltime musician, you’ll be doing what you love. But at the same time, everyone will be downloading all your music for free, simply because they can. This means that music won’t be a good, stable source of income for you, and this means you’d rather take up a job. Since you’re not working on your music every day, your talent will be underdeveloped, and the little pieces of music you do write, for example in the weekend, are not as good as they could have been. So, downloading music without permission will lead to fewer good musicians. That’s not only bad for the musicians, but also for us: we’ll have less good music to listen to.

negative: The future of poetry teaching looks dismal. It is falling into disrepute by citing rappers as modern day poets.  Given that the highly respected Royal Holloway University of London is one such institution that supports this, the future of poetry education and even poetry itself does not look hopeful. Sir Andrew Motion, Professor of Creative writing at Royal Holloway, University of London, specified that; "Poetry is a house of many mansions. It does pupils a disservice only to tell them things they already know. Rap has its own challenges and opportunities - but so do many other kinds of poetry, many of which are neglected in schools".1 Eminem has caused much offence and controversy over the years with his homophobic lyrics. This is just one example of why rap is not to be encouraged at all, let alone awarded a label of (so-called) "poetry". Rappers like him must not be promoted as great artists in the classroom. It is unthinkable that rappers who promote gun crime, drugs and degrade women should be given a platform and even promoted in classrooms. These are simply not the values education can possibly support. 1 Edwards, Paul, "Why rap should be taught in schools", Royal Holloway University of London, 28 January 2010, accessed 1 September 2011

negative: The government has no such right to restrict the right of free speech inherent in all video games. In a 2011 judgement, the American Supreme Court ruled "while states have legitimate power to protect children from harm, 'that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.'"1 This is in part due to the fear that to restrict violent video games would be a step towards the banning or restriction of books considered antithetical to the views of the government. A state could ban all books or films that paint a negative image of society or encourage revolution, however that is clearly the action of a dictatorial or authoritarian state. Stan Lee, the creator of comic book characters like The Hulk and Spiderman, sees a comparison to the attempt in the 1950s to restrict the sales of comic books. "Comic books, it was said, contributed to 'juvenile delinquency'. A Senate subcommittee investigated and decided the U.S. could not 'afford the calculated risk involved in feeding its children, through comic books, a concentrated diet of crime, horror and violence.'"2 As Lee notes, in hindsight this appears comical2. The same mistake cannot be made with violent video games.  1 Holland, J. J. (2011, June 27). Can't ban violent video sales to kids, court says. Retrieved June 28, 2011 from the Associated Press  2 Lee, S. (2010, September). Defend video games with Stan Lee. Retrieved June 20, 2011, from Video Game Voters Network:

negative: The Responsibility Lies With Parents  In the digital age, young people are almost certain to be exposed to violent media content, including violent video games, even if parents attempt to restrict children’s exposure to such content in the home. Parents therefore have an obligation to educate themselves about video games (many government, industry and private websites provide such information) and to help their children become “media literate” regarding the content and context of games.  The state places responsibility on parents for the welfare of a child and in doing so the state can allow things that would potentially be dangerous for children, anything from skateboards to R-rated films, as long as parents can supervise their children. Parents need not know how to skateboard to supervise such activity, but should know about potential risks and safety equipment. This same logic applies to video games.  To not confer this responsibility on parents is to further undermine their status as role models for their children, as it assumes that parents are incapable of ensuring the safety of their children.  Practically speaking, this could affect the respect they get from their children, with “The government says I can’t,” being a much weaker response when questioned about violent video games than an actual explanation of the harms behind them. [1]  [1] American Psychological Association. "Violent Video Games — Psychologists Help Protect Children from Harmful Effects", 8 June 2004,

negative: arts science censorship ip digital freedoms access knowledge house believes all The costs of monitoring copyright by states, artists, and lawyers far outweigh the benefits, and is often simply ineffective  The state incurs huge costs in monitoring for copyright infringement, in arresting suspected perpetrators, in imprisonment of those found guilty, even though in reality nothing was stolen but an idea that, once released to it, belonged to the public domain more or less. [1] Furthermore, the deterrent effect to copyright piracy generated by all the efforts of the state and firms has proven generally minimal. In fact, the level of internet piracy of books, music, and films has increased dramatically year on year for several years, increasing by 30% in 2011 alone. [2] This is because in many cases copyright laws are next to unenforceable, as the music and movie industries have learned to their annoyance in recent years, for example ninety percent of DVDs sold in China are bootlegs while even western consumers are increasingly bypassing copyright by using peer to peer networks. [3] Only a tiny fraction of perpetrators are ever caught, and though they are often punished severely in an attempt to deter future crime, it has done little to stop their incidence. Copyright, in many cases, does not work in practice plain and simple. Releasing works under a creative commons licensing scheme does a great deal to cope with these pressures. In the first instance it is a less draconian regime, so individuals are more willing to buy into it as a legitimate claim by artists rather than an onerous stranglehold on work. This increases compliance with the relaxed law. Secondly, the compliance means that artists are given the vocal crediting under the license rules that gives them more public exposure than clandestine copying could not. Ultimately this adaptation of current copyright law would benefit the artist and the consumer mutually.  [1] World Intellectual Property Organization. “Emerging Issues in Intellectual Property”. 2011   [2] Hartopo, A. “The Past, Present and Future of Internet Piracy”. Jakarta Globe. 26 July 2011.   [3] Quirk, M., “The Movie Pirates”, The Atlantic, 19 November 2009,

negative: Violent Video Games Prevent Violent Behaviour  In most people’s lives there are instances where they might like to react to a situation with a level of aggression. However, owing to a number of reasons such a solution is often impossible and undesirable.  It has been theorised by psychologists that pent up frustrations with the world are the root of many psychological problems. Given that this is true then, an outlet for frustrations is required in society such that aggressive behaviour in individuals can be avoided.  Video games in this situation provide such an outlet for aggression and frustrations. Firstly aggression is dealt with through the simple act of defeating enemies within games and frustration is dealt with through the completion of goals within the video games, allowing players a sense of satisfaction upon their completion.  Hence, one could argue that this may result in comparatively lower levels of aggressive behaviour among video game players. This is supported by research conducted by Dr. Cheryl Olson and her team at Harvard. Studying a sample of 1,254 students aged 12 to 14 years, she found that over 49% of boys and 25% of girls reported using violent games such as Grand Theft Auto IV as an outlet for their anger.  She suggests that instead of a blanket ban on M-rated game use by young adolescents, parents should monitor how much time children spend playing games and how they react to specific game content. [1]  [1] Olson, Cheryl K., et al., ‘Factors Correlated with Violent Video Game Use by Adolescent Boys and Girls’, Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol.41 no.1, pp77-83, July 2007,