On Tuesday last week, I wrote a piece disagreeing with Crawley’s suggestion that it should be illegal for record stores to sell music containing lyrics which call for violence against gay people. The idea that this constitutes clear, direct incitement to violence is, as far as I can see, unsubstantiated. I later went on Tommy Boyd to talk about it, and what I see as a disregard for freedom of speech (the brief segment is podcasted here).
In today’s Guardian, Brendan O’Neill comes through in a compelling piece - far moreso than my own - in which he asserts that a lack of trust in people to write and hear music which contains hateful lyrics without committing murder afterwards amounts to bigotry:
“The campaign to criminalise anti-gay Jamaican music, spearheaded by gay rights groups and enforced by the police and now Brighton council, is underpinned by some pretty poisonous prejudices. It is based on what we might call “homophobia-phobia” - an irrational fear and loathing of straight males, especially black ones.
“The argument that Jamaican dancehall may provoke violence or public disorder is specious. It rests on the assumption that dancehall fans are a mob of ignorant bigots who could be stirred to commit acts of homophobic violence by listening to Buju Banton or some other moron singing about ‘batty boys.’”
This is strikingly similar to the sentiments in a question asked by our own commenter here, Quinney, who wrote: “So the argument is that it incites violence. What, so we’re a society of lemmings without brains? Blank slates, upon which any asshole can write “KILL†and we’ll do it like robotic numbskulls?” I have to say, the question is a valid one.
And Brendan echoes my own question about the validity of seeing incitement happen so easily:
“The anti-dancehall campaign also shows how flabby the category of incitement has become. Traditionally, in the eyes of the law, incitement involved a close relationship between two parties where one party encouraged, implored or cajoled the other into doing something criminal. Now it seems we can be incited by the music playing over a loudspeaker in a dingy club.
“The old legal definition of incitement viewed individuals as rational and reasonable, and in need of intense coaxing before they could be said to have been incited; in the current view of incitement, individuals are seen as unthinking automatons who can be provoked into violence by hearing a song, seeing an image or listening to a provocative speech.
“The nonsense notion that dancehall fans can be ‘incited to violence’ by listening to music calls into question their rationality, and free will itself. They are reduced to little more than attacks dogs who hear Buju Banton’s orders and then carry them out.”
See the rest of this great article here.
———————-
UPDATE: 12/13/2007
After chatting with Will about this, it appears that where he wishes to draw the line (and where I think I’d agree) is at direct incitement to violence. I’ve argued that I don’t believe Beenie Man lyrics constitute incitement, and Will thinks there’s a chance a court of law may have the opportunity to rule on such a question in the near future.
John, I am a reader of Will C’s blog and I have to say that you have completely misrepresented his articles on your site. He does NOT argue that “music containing homophobic lyrics should be banned”. He argues that music containing language that calls for violence against gay people should be banned. The music he’s talking about is “murder music”. I’ve dont some work on that type of music and this debate is not simply about homophobic language, it’s about direct and explicit incitement to violence. I defend the right of people to express racism, sexiam or homophobia in public speech. When, however, they step over the line into DIRECT and EXPLICIT calls for violence, that must be prohibited. This is precisely the position Will has been defending. You owe him a correction and an apology.
David-
Welcome. You make an allegation! I know Crawley well and wouldn’t knowingly misrepresent his position.
I reread my first paragraph in light of your comment: you have a point on my use of phrasing, which gave the impression that the argument was about straightforward homophobic lyrics.
I’ve now altered my sentence to reflect the difference. Thanks for correcting me.
(BTW David, on the issue of the argument that we should treat music as an incitement to violence, I wrote this reply to David Oxford on W&T.)
——————
I’ll agree that I overstated the point at the beginning. And I’m aware that laws have been made which disagree with my position.
You say that lyrics are a form of communication, and that lyrics in a song should be treated the same way in this regard as a sentence in a speech.
To me that’s a little dogmatic; tantamount to saying that what the bible says in Genesis should be treated the same way as what it says in Acts. The purpose of a lyric is different than the purpose of a speech. It’s been alleged that Ian Paisley’s speeches have incited violence in the past. (I’d be interested to know if you support that assessment.)
Whether or not that’s right, I think clear that if a speaker gives a speech in which he says that we should “Hang lesbians with a long piece of rope”, it should be treated entirely differently than the lyric of a song, which often cannot be read literally, in the way that readers here appear to want to read it.
I agree that, if it’s read literally, that particular sentiment is a clear incitement to violence. I don’t think ANY piece of music can be heard that way. Did Tina Turner really want to roll on a river? For that matter, did she really leave a good job in the city, working for the Man every night and day? Clean plates in Memphis? Pump tane in New Orleans? It’s art. It may not be very nice art, but I’m simply not convinced that the dynamic of this thing operates thus:
1) Recording artist creates song
2) Vulnerable youth hears lyric “Hang chi chi gal wid a long piece of rope”
3) Vulnerable youth finds his violent feelings toward gay people substantiated
4) Vulnerable youth gets together with friends and finds a gay guy to beat.
I find most of these lyrics impossible to understand in any case. (Perhaps if you’re sure that Beenie Man hates gay people you could explain this lyric: “I want a dude who will do me in the van…”) Maybe thinking people like you and I just shouldn’t try to listen to and interpret rap music! It’s its own art form, and not exactly supposed to be analysed. (It’s supposed to be blared from the boom boxes of annoying teenagers.)
On your question of whether I agree with Will that it should be illegal for record stores to stock this Beenie Man CD, no - I disagree. If someone issues a spoken word album in which there’s a clear incitement to violence… something along the lines of “We hate X. I think the time has come to send X a message. Pick up your arms….” etc., then I’d be happy to call it incitement and we can talk about how to deal with that appropriately in law. But banning this or that strikes me as entirely the wrong way to go about such things.
Evenin’ all,
As an addendum to this story ( and by the way I think direct incitements to murder should attract very careful attention) the BBC has decided in its wisdom to censor the lyrics of the Christmas classic ‘Fairytale of New York’ by The Pogues and Kirsty McColl.
Apparently the problem is the use of the term ‘faggot’ in the scripted diatribe of McColl’s character in the duet. It may apparently cause distress to any gay listeners who haven’t been aware of the term being used when the song has been played something upwards of a billion times in the past twenty years since its release.
I will post a link to this nonsense when I can shake off my weary disbelief and the sheer embarrassment that my countrymen could be such prissy little wankers (oops).
Liam, I understand your frustration with this idiocy. All I can say is that if we are so upset over a word, we are no more mature than infants. It’s pathetic, truly.
Thanks Quinney,
You’re a still small voice of reason sometimes.
The link below is a good summary of the topic. Happily the BBC has now changed its mind (if it had one in the first place). It also pertains to Brendan O’Neill’s original article.
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2007/12/twenty_years_after_it_was.html
Last word on the subject from me I promise but the link below to Brendan’s piece in the Guardian today brings all this full circle
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brendan_oneill/2007/12/bbc_pogue_mahone.html
Liam- Love it. Thanks again.