Is free speech in music protected under the Constitution?
Controversy abounds in the modern world, and that fact seems obvious.  However, controversy was also abundant in past years, in a time long, long ago- The Eighties.  In the early 1980s, there were those who became concerned with the contents of music and their relation to the youth of the world.  One such concerned person was Tipper Gore, wife of 2000 Presidential Candidate and former Vice-President Albert Gore.  The issue was presented when Mrs. Gore heard lyrics to musical artist Prince’s song “Darling Nikki”.  Mrs. Gore was shocked at the fact that there was no warning label on the recording informing parents of the lyrical content.  Mrs. Gore then, along with Susan Baker, wife of Treasury Secretary James Baker; Pam Howar, wife of Washington realtor Raymond Howar; and Sally Nevius, wife of Washington City Council Chairman John Nevius, formed the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC) and attempted to get Parental Advisory stickers put on music.  First, however, there was a Senate Hearing on the issue, as many artists protested that free speech was being impeded upon.

PMRC- Parents Music Resource Center
Censorship- The editing, removal, or otherwise changing of speech or actions.
First Amendment- The first amendation to the Constitution, which contains the phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Committee of Commerce, Science, and Transportaion- is a Senate standing committee which, among the items in the title, reviews matters relating to science and technology, oceans policy, transportation, communications, and consumer affairs, and reports on those findings.
Probing Questions:
Definitional:
What is censorship?
Why is censorship allowed?
Evidential:
Is censorship of music protected under the constitution?
Is music a form of free speech?
Policy:
Who decides what music to censor and how to censor it?
Why is censorship important to more conservative persons?
Value:
Is censorship necessary?
Why is or isn’t in necessary?
Speculative:
Does censorship help or hurt America?
What does censorship do to the nation?
Opposing Arguments
Those against free speech in music often declare that the music is offensive.  As Mrs. Baker of the PMRC puts it, “There certainly are many causes for these ills in our society, but  it is our contention that the pervasive messages aimed at children  which promote and glorify suicide, rape, sadomasochism, and so on,  have to be numbered among the contributing factors.”  Another issue is that, according to Mrs. Gore, “the  material that has caused the concern is new and different. It is not  just a continuation of controversies of past generations.”  The opposers are concerned about the direction that musical content is going in.
The issues in 1985 are just as relevant as they are now.  However, it seems that now the country is more liberal with song lyrics- with songs like 50 Cent’s “Candy Shop” and Kanye West’s “Gold Digger” at the top of the charts in recent years.  However, this music is considered rap or hip-hop.  In fact, only 4 rock songs have hit #1 in this millennium- With Arms Wide Open by Creed, How You Remind Me by Nickelback, Bad Day by Daniel Powter, and You’re Beautiful by James Blunt.  So it seems that rock music has been affected by censorship- only one of the songs contains an obscenity, the latter, and only one occurrence.  So it seems that the battle was won when the PMRC began to put Parental Advisory labels on music in the ‘80s.
Supporting Arguments
Many arguments supporting free speech come from the artists themselves.  Famed American composer, guitarist, singer, film director, and satirist Frank Zappa was a witness at the hearings.  According to Zappa, “It is my understanding that in law First Amendment issues are decided with a preference for the least restrictive alternative. In this context, the PMRC demands are the equivalent of treating dandruff by decapitation.”  Zappa was also considered obscene in the times, with songs such as “Catholic Girls,” “Jewish Princess”, “Jesus Thinks You’re a Jerk,” and “Sexual Harassment in the Workplace.”  According to Zappa, It is a choice to engage the youth in the offensive music: “No one has forced Mrs. Baker or Mrs. Gore to bring Prince or Sheena Easton into their homes. Thanks to the Constitution, they are free to buy other forms of music for their children. Apparently, they insist on purchasing the works of contemporary recording artists in order to support a personal illusion of aerobic sophistication.”
Zappa also believed that it was the responsibility of the parents to control what their children listen to. He disliked the politics of the whole thing: “The establishment of a rating system, voluntary or otherwise, opens the door to an endless parade of moral quality control programs based on things certain Christians do not like. What if the next bunch of Washington wives demands a large yellow "J" on all material written or performed by Jews, in order to save helpless children from exposure to concealed Zionist doctrine?”  He also criticized the agenda of the issue, claiming that it was about H.R. 2911, which was a private tax levied by an industry on consumers for the benefit of a select group within that industry.  Zappa’s words on it were: “Is this a consumer issue? You bet it is. The major record labels need to have H.R. 2911 whiz through a few committees before anybody smells a rat. One of them is chaired by Senator Thurmond. Is it a coincidence that Mrs. Thurmond is affiliated with the PMRC?
I cannot say she is a member, because the PMRC has no members. Their secretary told me on the phone last Friday that the PMRC has no members, only founders. I asked how many other District of Columbia wives are nonmembers of an organization that raises money by mail, has a tax-exempt status, and seems intent on running the Constitution of the United States through the family paper-shredder. I asked her if it was a cult. Finally, she said she could not give me an answer and that she had to call their lawyer…Freedom of speech, freedom of religious thought, and the right to due process for composers, performers and retailers are imperiled if the PMRC and the major labels consummate this nasty bargain.”


PERSONAL OPINION
I am an avid supporter of free speech of all kinds.  Also, being a musician, lyrical free speech is incredibly important to me.  The late genius Frank Zappa is one of my heroes, along with John Lennon, another notorious free speech supporter.  By inhibiting the distribution of music, one inhibits the distribution of creativity and creative material.  
Plus, as Frank Zappa has said, “I don't think there's a problem. First of all, I don't think music turns people into social liabilities. Because you hear a lyric -- there's no medical proof that a person hearing a lyric is going to act out the lyric. There's also no medical proof that if you hear any collection of vowels and consonants, that the hearing of that collection is going to send you to Hell.”  All you hear on the radio are the same things over and over.  Artists such as Frank Zappa would never be played on commercial radio- after all, he fought the system and we can’t have that, right?  It might incite rebellion.  If people are allowed to say what they want to say, then people aren’t protected, right?  Wrong.  There are the sorts of ideas that are present in the minds of the men who run the world- and yes, men, in this sexist society.  Also, if material is taken away, it is desired more.  One always wants what they cannot have.  I will end also on Frank Zappa.  A prosecuting attorney at one of Zappa’s trials questioned the content of Zappa’s lyrics, citing “newts in a nightclub”.  He claimed he found this image disturbing.  Frank Zappa retorted:
“Anyone who is disturbed by the idea of newts in a nightclub is potentially dangerous.”