Do you believe that music that glorifies violence against women should be banned?

by Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru Posted 2012/05/14 14:23:57

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	yes	77 votes	40%
	no	117 votes	60%

More polls by Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru

Mark Mercer 2012/05/15 07:28:19

no

I feel it best that consumers, not purchase the 'stuff'....money 'talks' If they can't sell it, they will avoid recording it.

reply
TheTruth1313 2012/05/15 07:11:15

no

As much as it can be distasteful, it is still something that is protected by the first amendment. Censorship is always the wrong answer.

reply
Dalvin 2012/05/15 06:45:56

no

Not saying that it's cool to hit women but if one thing is successfully censored then you better believe that a lot more will also be censored. Where will it end once it begins?

reply
JenSemPa 2012/05/15 05:57:38

no

Violence against women is a horrible thing, of course, but we don't censor speech in our country. If you hear a song "glorifying violence against women," it doesn't mean it's okay to go out and do it.

Besides, would it be any better if it were glorifying violence against men?

Maybe it's just me, but I'm one of those silly souls who thinks violence is always bad, no matter what the gender of the victim is.

reply
Red_Horse 2012/05/15 05:48:05
Somkey the Hores 2012/05/15 05:17:40

no

It should be IGNORED.

reply
Rocko 2012/05/15 05:07:17 (edited)

no

nope freedom of speech and expression

but there are some extreme examples tho that just abuse and hide behind it

reply
Wahvlvke 2012/05/15 03:56:22

no

If you do what will rappers do for entertainment?

reply
Kerri Mackenzie 2012/05/15 03:33:09

no

Because I loathe any form of media that glorifies violence against anyone, I simply don’t listen or watch or buy. There are many things in this world I don’t like and would like to see stopped, but a ban isn’t the way to make it happen. Rather, it’s far more effective to use my power by not spending my money on that type of trash. If the record company and so-called artist doesn’t profit, that kind of garbage would be greatly minimized. The almighty dollar is far more powerful than any ban ever could be.

reply
martin28 2012/05/15 03:04:28 (edited)

yes

+1
Stupid people act out what they hear all too often because they believe it'll make them look good. Tyler the creator is the first on my list to ban.

The first amendment right goes out the window when someone threatens the president or calls for his death, individual citizens should have this same protection also. Music glorifying targeted attacks should be banned from the mainstream music sellers.

reply
Red_Horse to martin28 2012/05/15 05:48:53
martin28 to Red_Horse 2012/05/31 19:35:06

+1
Any president, no one can openly talk about harming the president without having suits monitor their whereabouts.

reply
Red_Horse to martin28 2012/05/31 21:21:29
Beat Ma... to martin28 2012/05/15 07:37:33

The criteria for this is subjective, and starts people down a very slippery slope.

reply
martin28 to Beat Ma... 2012/05/31 19:36:17

True

reply
Cyan9 2012/05/15 02:39:22

no

so much for freedom of speech...

reply
martin28 to Cyan9 2012/05/15 03:07:33

+1
So freedom of speech should be embraced when people are talking about raping someone or having violent sex or other physically harmful things? And then knowing that of the hundreds of listeners many will try to act it out.

reply
Beat Ma... to martin28 2012/05/15 07:38:13

+1
Because no one acted out on that before some singer told them to? Guess what? There were no "good old days."

reply
Merry☆ 2012/05/15 02:19:45

no

+1
Songs that glorify violence disgust me, which is why I personally stay far away from them.

reply
☠ Live ... to Merry☆ 2012/05/17 00:27:09

Some people just can't grasp this concept. Sad.

reply
EDWARD G 2012/05/15 01:50:21

no

Don't ban it, put a special tax on it( say about 200 percent) to fund programs for victims of abuse. There is no doubt in my mind that this type of music desensitizes people over timeand I think it is way past time to view it as anything less than the ranting of some useless hoodrats.

reply
Merry☆ to EDWARD G 2012/05/15 02:21:16

Because pirating music wasn't already a problem... >.>

reply
NoName to Merry☆ 2012/05/15 14:40:57

"Because pirating music wasn't already a problem... >.>"

Depends on the definition of "problem," and who you want to turn to for the facts on the matter. :P

reply
Wahvlvke to EDWARD G 2012/05/15 03:58:07

Oh yeah ... govt. subjectivity will fix it for sure.

reply
Blackberry 2012/05/15 01:39:49

no

+1
What a stupid question. Should we ban music that glorifies drinking as well?

reply
★earthbound_misfit★ 2012/05/15 01:21:20

no

+1
Banned, no, but people should stop buying it and then they would stop making it. Violent music doesn't produce violence against women, rather, it's a product of the same attitudes that do cause violence against women and perpetuates them.

reply
Sean McDonald 2012/05/15 01:02:32 (edited)

no

+2

reply
Apache 2012/05/15 00:57:02

yes

+3
I am surprised the explicit lyrics romanticizing, justifying & normalizing the rape, torture & murder of women remains relatively prolific. One prominent genre featuring these lyrics is rap, a protected species it would seem. There is a sick, dark world this music inspires & is inspired by. Men, women & children are all material for controversial lyrics, designed to trigger publicity via public debate. Yet this debate has not been forthcoming.
I have witnessed the adrenalin & revitalized intent when a song has accompanied brutality. Take away the props & the individual has regains a degree of accountability & reality.

If anyone can tell me why this music had not been banned please enlighten me!

reply
☠ Live ... to Apache 2012/05/15 01:09:10

+2
"If anyone can tell me why this music had not been banned please enlighten me!"

Well, here's one good reason...

reply
martin28 to ☠ Live ... 2012/05/15 03:11:48

+1
You use this to back your opinion yet an individual cannot go out and make threats on the president's life. So obviously this law is suppressed depending on the situation, why shouldn't violent music (which heavily influence fools to be violent) be treated the same?

reply
jackie to martin28 2012/05/15 05:18:16

I seen a video that people threaten the president life hundreds of times everyday. I seen it at school a long time ago from people who protect the president.

reply
☠ Live ... to martin28 2012/05/15 19:19:19 (edited)

Unless the music is talking about a SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL who is EXPLICITLY IDENTIFIED, it is protected speech. For example...

"I'm so mad, at my girlfriend, I could choke her!"
-Protected.

"Man, I'm going to Jane A. Doe's house at 000 Whatever Street, Townsville, Statesylvania and choking her to death, and everyone listening to this should do the same!"
-NOT protected.

reply
Apache to ☠ Live ... 2012/05/15 03:55:41

+2
Contrary to popular belief, censorship of music is legal. The first amendment precludes government censorship. This does not extend to censorship from Non Gov sectors including financial, community, church & the multitude of local @ vocal stakeholders who exert upwards pressure. Hence labeling of music re age appropriate, violent etc. This means that it is legal for private companies to tell what and what not their customers can listen to.

Obviously the consumer chooses where he/she will purchase music & thus circumventing the blocked content, assuming there has not been a more systemic agreement. The first amendment is not the reason behind the distribution & sale of this music. Business is playing big brother...conflict of interest?

reply
☠ Live ... to Apache 2012/05/15 19:26:15

It's government censorship that I'm against, though. I'm not slow, I know that private companies and people can label music and other things appropriate or not. Even when that is going on, grown adults can still chose to spend their money on the music they want.

But the when the government says that NO ONE can listen to something because SOME people can't handle it, that is ridiculous.

reply
Apache to ☠ Live ... 2012/05/16 03:50:44

+2
I am not an advocate for censhorship, not at a government level.
Nor do I advocate for the 'right' to promote & vicariously seek gratification in the rape, torture & murderer of another individual. I understand these two positions are in opposition, this is quite evident. Do you propose any alternate options or is the status quo preferable to the 'ridiculous' vetting of music by the government?

reply
☠ Live ... to Apache 2012/05/16 15:18:24 (edited)

LOL, how about banning the actual ACT instead of the "promoting" of it? And how about we stop insulting the intelligence of American citizens by suggesting that hearing one violent song will make them go on a killing and raping spree? NEWS FLASH! The type of music you are talking about; the kind that "promotes" violence, promiscuity, drug use, ect; caters to people who already do those things, and who did them and were exposed to them long before they were exposed to music that discusses it.

reply
Apache to ☠ Live ... 2012/05/16 21:33:44

+2
It is this type of singular, dogmatic response that allows the legal distribution, marketing & subsequent glorification of extreme violence. What the individual chooses to do to himself/ herself is not the issue...drugs, promiscuity....not the issue. NEWS FLASH - violent movies & songs have been cited in court transcripts, pre-sentencing reports as the immediate trigger for a killing spree. Sure, a train wreck waiting to happen but maybe not, or possibly less bodies or less missing parts. Your already exposed to the content argument is not always valid. They are convenient arguments with no scientific support to contradict the link between violent imagery & violent behavior. We allow the sale of pseudo snuff films...to allow an individual to imagine they're watching a real murder. Personally I say ban the sale of this cr&p, seeing one too many jerks copy the MO might foster my cynicism.

reply
☠ Live ... to Apache 2012/05/17 00:33:55
Apache to ☠ Live ... 2012/05/17 04:37:04

+1
The problem is complicated & systemic. The oversimplification of your response fails to grasp the issues. If the only individual hurt was the one committing the violent acts then your logic would be valid. We are not dealing with individuals who operate on the same cognitive playing field...certainly the forbidden fruit proposition has no logical or empirical support. For the novice killer the connection between violent imagery, violent rumination & increased motivation to act on violent impulses is one not known in advance. Yes, for veteran or more experienced violent individuals, the imagery is used to fuel/feed homicidal fantasies leading up to the event. Banning these images would have less impact on this population. Conversely, those who have not experienced the cycle of violent imagery, desire, planning,
execution,rumination & resurgence of desire will not have any awareness of this potential trigger as 'forbidden fruit'.

The topic can be discusses ad nauseum without resolution. My primary argument is that research has demonstrated a direct link between violent imagery/lyrics & violent behaviour. Yes, the individual committing the crime is responsible. That still leaves the victim...I doubt they would be so worried about censorship if it meant preventing their death. Emo...&

The problem is complicated & systemic. The oversimplification of your response fails to grasp the issues. If the only individual hurt was the one committing the violent acts then your logic would be valid. We are not dealing with individuals who operate on the same cognitive playing field...certainly the forbidden fruit proposition has no logical or empirical support. For the novice killer the connection between violent imagery, violent rumination & increased motivation to act on violent impulses is one not known in advance. Yes, for veteran or more experienced violent individuals, the imagery is used to fuel/feed homicidal fantasies leading up to the event. Banning these images would have less impact on this population. Conversely, those who have not experienced the cycle of violent imagery, desire, planning,
execution,rumination & resurgence of desire will not have any awareness of this potential trigger as 'forbidden fruit'.

The topic can be discusses ad nauseum without resolution. My primary argument is that research has demonstrated a direct link between violent imagery/lyrics & violent behaviour. Yes, the individual committing the crime is responsible. That still leaves the victim...I doubt they would be so worried about censorship if it meant preventing their death. Emotive? Yes. At times I think it is worth reminding each other you are human & hopefully connected by a desire to protect society from those who have the opposite goals.
(more)

reply
Angi 2012/05/15 00:55:16

yes

+1
I would say yes, but if you ban something, it can make it more popular. But songs that are out right violent towards women or any one for that matter dosen't sound like a good idea.

reply