ny time in prison. The fact is that there were no charges filed against Marilyn Manson. As for the music store that sold the boy the album, they too will pay no debt to society, because unfortunately it is legal to sell such records to children. Young kids have no business purchasing albums with parental advisory stickers on them, but it happens every day. It has been argued that to restrict buyers of any age violates our freedom of speech. Is it possible that the rights of profit-hungry recording artists who produce immoral, violent, songs are the ones the United States Constitution protects the most (Quaid 7A)? Shock-rock groups are not the only ones recording controversial music these days. Many rap artists are also selling morally degrading records. There is no reason for a twelve-year-old to be listening to songs entitled: "To Kill a Hooker," "One Less B****," or "Findum, F***um & Flee." The titles alone tell all which needs to be told about these types of groups and their ethics (or lack of). In 1991, the Attorney General of Minnesota, Hubert H. Humphrey III, asserted that music with violent lyrics "feeds the warped and demented minds that perpetrate such violence" as sexual assault and rape (Morris Paragraph 4, 6).
             Luther Campbell, who is the president of his own rap record label, disagrees with many of his counterparts. While many artists are against censoring songs in any way, Campbell feels it is a good idea to have a clean version of rap songs for play on the radio or public areas. He states that he would not want his own young children to hear some of the violent and sexually explicit lyrics that other rap artists call their freedom of expression (Benesch Paragraph 14-15).
             The United States Supreme Court has long ruled that obscenity may be regulated, or in other words, censored. In the decision of the Supreme Court case Roth v. United States, obscene material was def...