Howl at Censorship

The final ruling of this case seems to me to be the right one that this poem was not obscene enough to be held off air during times when children would not be listening. It is ridiculous to think, as they suggested, that so many other things far worse are created in our mass media culture and are accepted and allowed to be aired on television and the radio. Many pieces not accepted to be so cultural as a poem that reflects a man’s view of our society during a difficult time, have been admired and encouraged to be aired, even during times that might be caught by a child’s eye. While words such as “negro”, “naked” and “smoking” do appear in lines of the poem, none of these words are as terrible as some make them out to be, and are certainly far better than many of the language heard walking down the street today.

It is almost impossible to distinguish which words are acceptable to be used in a public manor, and even harder to determine how those who do broadcast or popularize them should be held accountable (the 1^st amendment is a hard thing to argue against).  I think that if certain words must be blocked out during times where children may be present, then they should be not allowed on television or radio at all. If so, then many of the songs we all listen to today would not be allowed, and the television shows we watch would be muted out every other word. When did it become okay to use the word bitch on TV? Or the word ass when hole is blocked out? A lot of this does not make sense and will never make sense because it what is okay is determined by a select group of people, who make decisions on what the public is presented with.