As Americans, we pride ourselves on our first amendment rights, freedom of speech and religion—a right that many artists in particular have come to love first and foremost, as it allows them to create whatever they would like without fear of punishment. However, throughout history, and even in recent days, we can see instances where this right has been temporarily striped away and has divided us on whether it is more important to speak freely or remain politically correct. —Kelsey Tostenson
As Americans, we pride ourselves on our first amendment rights, freedom of speech and religion—a right that many artists in particular have come to love first and foremost, as it allows them to create whatever they would like without fear of punishment. However, throughout history, and even in recent days, we can see instances where this right has been temporarily striped away and has divided us on whether it is more important to speak freely or remain politically correct.
Film artists have been pushing the boundary of what is culturally acceptable for decades. The surrealist movement in the early twentieth century caught the nation off guard with seemingly arbitrary images that tried to bridge the gap to the human subconscious. Un Chien Andalou by Salvador Dali and Luis Bunuel is a prime example of surrealist films that many deemed controversial because of the lack of plot line.
In 1930, a code called The Hayes Code was made to censor the films being made and began to be regularly enforced by 1934. In the Hollywood film industry it was believed that the filmmakers had much influence over the nations view, so a strict code of rules was set in place to make sure that all films being made were moral and ethical and did not influence people’s beliefs too much. The film industry also saw itself as guardians, protecting the American people from “unpleasant, disgusting, bad” films. They set guidelines as to what was considered appropriate to display on screen, and forced filmmakers to find clever new ways to push boundaries.
In recent days we can still see examples of our first amendment right being violated in the film industry, but this issue extends into other mediums of art as well. On November 24th, North Korea hacked into the Sony Database and and reportedly stole parts of the Sony film, The Interview. The film centers around two journalists that are instructed by the CIA to assassinate Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s dictator. Sony managed to restore the lost data and the movie was released as planned. However days after North Korea’s attack on Sony, North Korea’s internet access was shut down for an entire day.
It seems that we struggle with the ethics of freedom of speech, whether we are justified or not to say something derogatory about another culture or group of people because of this first amendment right. Recently, French satire publication, Charlie Herdo portrayed images of Muhammad, a sacred Islamic prophet that in their culture is never to be depicted. In response to the release of the issue several Islamic extremists killed 12 people who worked in the publication. Although this incident did not occur in America, France has it’s own laws concerning freedom of speech that can still be related to America.
There are so many examples of times when freedom of speech has divided the nation, but I personally feel it is important to be able to speak freely without fear of the consequences. Art should not be censored, but just on principle, people should also try and be mindful of other people’s cultural backgrounds.
Film artists have been pushing the boundary of what is culturally acceptable for decades. The surrealist movement in the early twentieth century caught the nation off guard with seemingly arbitrary images that tried to bridge the gap to the human subconscious. Un Chien Andalou by Salvador Dali and Luis Bunuel is a prime example of surrealist films that many deemed controversial because of the lack of plot line.
In 1930, a code called The Hayes Code was made to censor the films being made and began to be regularly enforced by 1934. In the Hollywood film industry it was believed that the filmmakers had much influence over the nations view, so a strict code of rules was set in place to make sure that all films being made were moral and ethical and did not influence people’s beliefs too much. The film industry also saw itself as guardians, protecting the American people from “unpleasant, disgusting, bad” films. They set guidelines as to what was considered appropriate to display on screen, and forced filmmakers to find clever new ways to push boundaries.
In recent days we can still see examples of our first amendment right being violated in the film industry, but this issue extends into other mediums of art as well. On November 24th, North Korea hacked into the Sony Database and and reportedly stole parts of the Sony film, The Interview. The film centers around two journalists that are instructed by the CIA to assassinate Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s dictator. Sony managed to restore the lost data and the movie was released as planned. However days after North Korea’s attack on Sony, North Korea’s internet access was shut down for an entire day.
It seems that we struggle with the ethics of freedom of speech, whether we are justified or not to say something derogatory about another culture or group of people because of this first amendment right. Recently, French satire publication, Charlie Herdo portrayed images of Muhammad, a sacred Islamic prophet that in their culture is never to be depicted. In response to the release of the issue several Islamic extremists killed 12 people who worked in the publication. Although this incident did not occur in America, France has it’s own laws concerning freedom of speech that can still be related to America.
There are so many examples of times when freedom of speech has divided the nation, but I personally feel it is important to be able to speak freely without fear of the consequences. Art should not be censored, but just on principle, people should also try and be mindful of other people’s cultural backgrounds.