ttempt to define obscenity, and says that music must appeal to the prurient interests and lack serious artistic merit. Since the definition was so vague, !
             music censorship has become completely controversial. Some of the promoters of music censorship include the National Parent Teachers Association, the Parents Music Resource Center and the Recording Industry Association of America. Conversely, many people question the constitutionality of the subject. The industry is in turmoil over censorship, not to mention the musicians along with the anti-censorship group, Rock Out Censorship (ROC), debating the morality issue.
             There are a myriad of logical arguments against musical censorship. They include the fact that music censorship is morally and constitutionally wrong. Another is the argument that if the government gets control to take away one of our rights, who is it to say that they won't take away another, and another, etc.? The third argument is that by the government controlling what we hear, they are also controlling our thoughts. Peoples' thoughts are controlled in a tyrannical dictatorship, not in a democracy. A much argued point is that the people of our great nation have the right to be creative, if this means that they express themselves any way they want in their lyrics, so be it. Music is a highly popularized form of creativity. Who is the government to take away our right to be creative? One additional point to make is, who chooses the group that decides what music should be censored? That is far too much power to lie in the hands of one group of people. Giving one gr!
             oup of people that much power is basically appointing them as a royalty because the country is becoming made to their likings and not the public. If the government can limit one artist's freedom, such as a musicians, and not another, such as a painter? An argument will also be presented using court cases that showed the immorality of ce...