CENSORSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITY

CENSORSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITY
Because of my life-long career in the world of serious music, and in particular opera, I have been afforded a great deal of travel. Having command of five languages, I have lived in North America, Europe, Asia, Russian and Israel. I take great delight in exploring the customs and traditions of others peoples throughout the world. Still, in all the great opportunities of living in other lands, one of the salient reasons for my intense patriotism to the USA is the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, the right to freedom of expression. It is for me one of the greatest of our inalienable rights. Were it not for that freedom we could not express, worship, discourse with others about our thoughts without fear of recourse or censorship. I defend anyone’s right to express an idea to the point that it is injurious to another. There is a fine line between supporting one’s freedom to express and supporting one’s ability to wreak havoc on a society. We have within this country, both on a national level and a state level rules that govern public decency. These codes are brought forward by the majority of the populace, and are part of the lexicon of laws of the land. If they are archaic or prejudicial, we have the wonderful constitutional system to amend them by majority vote. These codes were instituted to protect and preserve harmony within the populace. We have an interesting paradigm that exists in America wherein the codes that govern “decency” in public expression differ between the spoken or written word, and words communicated with the aid of music. The criteria is not as constrictive in music. As a result there are many messages of hostility and obscenity, conveyed through music, which would not be allowed utterance by text alone. It creates a dilemma. If we are to be selective about who has the write to have freedom of expression and who does not, we would jeopardize our remarkable constitutional rights. Nevertheless, I believe strongly in the principle of responsibility. If an artist wishes to convey a message of hostility or obscenity, it would seem unconstitutional to ban his or her right to do so. However, if producer chooses to promote the work and give it widespread exposure at the risk of injury to the public, this is an act of immoral irresponsibility. Richard Wagner’s perverse opinions on Anti-Semitism, in this nation would be protected by constitutional law, but when it takes that step, as it did with Adolf Hitler, to action that puts in jeopardy segments of our population, it steps beyond the bounds of constitutional protection. This is a delicate balance, and will probably always be under legal scrutiny, but I am concerned that the pendulum as swung alarmingly to the left without the balance of exercising responsibility in the dissemination of obscene or hostile ideas.