The question of sensitivity in the post 9/11 censorship

Résumé du document

In the days following the 9/11 attacks, many television and radio stations altered normal programming in response to the events. Indeed, the 09/11 events triggered the censors' impulse: the government and many powerful companies decided to control songs, images and speeches in order to protect sensitive people. Thus, with a heightened sensitivity, radio and television stations, museums, and newspapers tempered the content of their playlists, programs, exhibitions or articles, opting to avoid references to violence, murder, planes, suicide and terrorism. The questions that many ask themselves are: where does one draw the line and how far is too far? This prevalent wish of protection is a risk for Freedom of Speech (which guarantees the right to speak freely without censorship), because purging playlists or television programs is definitely a kind of censorship.

Extraits

[...] Even if the firms used the argument of “sensitivity” or “patriotism” to justify their acts, they remained definitely illegal. Beyond the problem of censorship, the limits to the act of memory were hard to define maybe because it is a too recent event. Bibliography Ahrens F., “Purging Playlists”, The Washington Post, September Coren G., “Banned Songs”, Times, September Davis P., “Radio Gets Patriotic”, St. Petersburg Times, September Dutton J. & Puchert W., “Music Industry Responds To Terrorism”, Zephyr Staff, October Hoffman K., “Radio Stations Show Sensitivity”, Houston Chronicle, September Lapham Rule, On The Stifling Of Dissent And The Suppression Of Democracy”, The Penguin Press, New York Strauss N., “After The Horror, Radio Stations Pull Some Songs”, The New York Times, September Truitt E., “It's The End Of The World As Clear Channel Knows Slate, September http://slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=1008314 Truitt E., “Profiles In Ass Covering,” Slate, September http://slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=1008318 Wishnia S., “Clear Channel's Hit Bad Transmission, October www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr010912.asp Ken Hoffman, “Radio Stations Show Sensitivity”, Houston Chronicle, September Giles Coren, “Banned Songs”, Times, September Pamela Davis, “Radio Gets Patriotic”, St. [...]

[...] However, by not respecting the First Amendment they damaged the freedom of expression. Indeed, Freedom of Speech in the United Sates is protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and by many state constitutions and federal laws. The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. [...]

[...] Company president John Hogan created a list thought might have some songs on it that might cause heightened sensitivity given the tragic events last week. The list was not a flat prohibition against these songs but merely helpful advisory information. Radio personnel were still free to make their own programming decisions”[3]. Nevertheless, “nobody, in a job as highly coveted and easily replaceable as radio DJ, is going to defy a “suggestion” from on high about what is “inappropriate””[4]. Indeed, many radio DJs followed the orders because they feared to be fired. [...]

[...] The Clear Channel's list has eliminated songs about flying and falling, but when something else happens, do we remove all the songs about trains and whatever else”[15]. In other words, she worried that this was just the beginning of suppression of artistic expression. Indeed, politicians and corporations that have been trying to restrict access to popular music may expand and perpetuate this list. It means that the First Amendment is no longer the Supreme Norm. However, this censorship, usually banned by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, was suddenly deemed appropriate by the people who chose to set it up after the 9/11 events. [...]

[...] Indeed, even if some journalists criticized President Bush for not returning to Washington DC immediately after hearing about the attacks on September 11th, public opinion did not hold it against him: 78% people approved the way Bush's administration coped with the situation[19]. That is the reason why there were so few claims by public opinion against the censorship established post 9/11. Nevertheless, while private patriotism was a true duty of memory (because it is emotional and voluntary), public patriotism was most likely done for money interests one more time. [...]