I came across this article from the Associated Press recently. The article contained two statements that I just had to respond to.
The basic summary of the article is that Green Day is disappointed with Wal-Mart's decision not to carry their latest album, 21st Century Breakdown, due to the Parental Advisory rating it received. Wal-Mart has long had a policy not to carry albums that come with a PA rating, though they are willing to carry a cleaned-up version of the album if the band wants to produce one. Green Day opted not to.
Wal-Mart's policy is often derided by artists who have had their albums rejected by the company. And I've read quite a few asinine statements by said artists when responding to the policy, many of which seem to be veiled indications that Wal-Mart is imposing on their free speech rights. Much like the following statement from Green Day bassist, Mike Dirnt.
"As the biggest record store in the America, they should probably have an obligation to sell people the correct art."
In other words, Mike is suggesting that Green Day's First Amendment free speech right trumps Wal-Mart's right to choose which products to carry in their stores.
Sorry, Mike, but you really missed the constitutional boat on this one.
First of all, free speech has never been, nor was it ever intended to be, an absolute right. If you go into a crowded theater and shout "fire" at the top of your lungs when there is no fire, claiming "free speech" isn't gonna get you out of paying a fine and/or jail time. Another example are the "disturbing the peace" laws that just about every city has. If you play your stereo loud enough to wake up China at 3 AM, the police won't be receptive to your claim that the loud music is a free speech expression. The court won't be receptive to that argument either when you try to fight the ticket. Free speech doesn't always trump every other rule or law that exists. There are times when free speech can be legally restricted.
Secondly, free speech rights were never intended to trump an individual's, or business', other rights. If you go into a person's home and start cussing up a storm at them, that person has the right to throw you out on your ear. Your free speech right does not trump the individual's right to choose what language can be used in their home. The same is true for a business in this scenario. If you go into a business and start cussing up a storm, the business has the right to throw you out on your ear. You can claim free speech all you want, but it won't help. Your right to free speech does not trump the business' right to choose what language can be used in their establishment. Free speech cannot be used to trample on the other constitutional rights an individual or business has.
Green Day says Wal-Mart should "have an obligation to carry the correct art." But that would violate Wal-Mart's right to decide for themselves what products they will carry in their stores. So long as the company doesn't break any laws, they have the right to use whatever criteria they desire. If they only want to carry albums by artists with last names that start with an H, they can do that. If they decide they don't want to carry any country music at all, they can do that as well. And if they want to only sell albums that don't come with a Parental Advisory on it, they have that right as well.
Another comment that got my attention came from guitarist Billie Joe Armstrong.
"If you think about bands that are struggling or smaller than Green Day ... to think that to get your record out in places like that, but they won't carry it because of the content and you have to censor yourself," he said. "I mean, what does that say to a young kid who's trying to speak his mind making a record for the first time?"
Actually, Billie Joe, I have to wonder what your comment is saying to a young kid who wants to speak their mind. Are you saying that the only way to speak your mind through cussing and adult situations? If so, then how much cussing and adult situations are required in order for a person to be considered "speaking their mind?"
Anyone who has listened to my Internet radio show (which has ended for this season) probably knows that Vote For The Worst has an Internet radio show that airs right before my show once a week. Both of our shows deal with American Idol, and we both speak our minds about the show. The Vote For The Worst hosts often cuss quite a bit during their show while talking about AI, whereas my co-host and I don't cuss as we talk about AI. Would Green Day not consider my co-host and I to be speaking our minds because we don't cuss? Is what we have to say any less valid than what the Vote For The Worst's hosts have to say?
Every artist, including Green Day, can decide for themselves the best way to speak their mind. If doing so includes writing lyrics with cussing and adult situations in them, then that is their decision. But like most decisions in life, deciding how best to speak one's mind could come with consequences. In this case, the consequences were that Wal-Mart chose not to carry the album. I don't blame Green Day for being disappointed with Wal-Mart's decision. I would feel the same way if I was ever lucky enough to be in their shoes. But to suggest that Wal-Mart should have an "obligation" to carry their album, or that they are sending a bad message to young kids by not carrying it, goes too far.
# posted by Alan @ 12:05 PM
Post a Comment
