Second Draft

 Government Should Not Censor All Music With Violent or Explicit Lyrics

  These days, every songs are evaluated by inquiry commission before they are played by mass media, and some violent or explicit lyrics are censored and prohibited so they cannot be played by mass media. Government claims that the government secures the ethicality and public character through this kind of censorship. At this point, many debates deal with this topic because musicians argue that their freedom of expressions must be ensured. However, we should be aware that this censorship is unnecessary. Government should not censor all music with violent or explicit lyrics. There are reasons why I think that music censorship is unnecessary.
  The music censorship did not just begin in the past 20 years. In fact, people have been censoring music all throughout the twentieth century. After the 50's, the music censorship started becoming even more prominent because of musicians with more carefree attitude and heavily involved on drugs and sex. And in the 1960s, finally, the lyrical content became the main cause for censorship.
  Especially in Korea, the past government corruptly used music censorship to achieve their political purpose. The music censorship by government had extensively implemented throughout 1970s by the Korea Broadcasting Ethics Committee and Korea Media Rating Board.
  Most of the rap musics include violent and explicit contents, so they are censored by government. According to the searchable database of hip-hop lyrics from Rap Research Lab-founded by Tahir Hemphill-, however, the data showed very little correlation between the crimes in the lyrics and their counterparts. So the argument that violent or explicit lyrics influence crimes have to be accepted incredulously.
  As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights emphasized, Everyone has the freedom of expression. Artists express their feelings and thoughts through their works. If the music is censored, musician's freedom of expression will be violated. Other genres of art is seemed to be censored less strictly than lyrics in music. Many songs are banned because of their violent or explicit contents and they cannot be played through mass media.
  This kind of censorship unnecessarily invades the musicians' freedom of expression. Musicians cannot earn a living when their music does not receive enough attention. When the music censored and banned, It cannot be played on mass media so it won't receive enough attention. So, musicians will start to hide their real feelings and thoughts to pass the censorship, and the nature of music will be spoiled. Likewise, many songs were banned improperly under the dictatorship for the political rationalization. 
  What's more, music censorship by government can be used inappropriately. In South Korea, for example, 1960s ~ 70s was the age of dictatorship. Many people protest against the government, and government suppressed the protest using military force. They also banned the music used in a demo or seemed to be related in politics with ridiculous reasons. The most of songs banned at that time were banned with the reasons such as 'decadent lyrics', 'indecent singing method', 'encouraging distrust'. For example, the past Korean government had banned the song named 'Give me some water' stating the reason that the title and lyrics of song reminds a water torture. Another example is the song named 'Gangling Fellow Mr. Kim'. The past Korean government had also banned that song stating the reason that the title and lyrics of song would get on former president Park Jeong-Hee's nerves because he was short. The song named 'March for Lover' was banned under the military regime too, because the lyrics of the song are about Gwangju Democratization Movement. 
  There are plenty of people, especially parents, who will dispute my position with concerning the bad influence of violent or explicit lyrics on children. Of course, violent or explicit contents are not good for children's sentiment. However, censoring those lyrics for children's sentiment does not make sense. As the parents instruct their children before they watch movies or cartoons, parents can instruct their children before they listen to music including violent or explicit lyrics. Some people who will dispute my position can argue that violent or explicit lyrics can cause crimes. There are statistic researched the relation between explicit lyrics and crime rate, however, and the data showed very little correlation between the explicit lyrics and their counterparts. For example, there was a significant crime drop between 1993 and 1995. However, crimes mentioned in lyrics steadily increased from 1993 to 1995. This fact can prove that violent or explicit lyrics does not directly influence crimes. When we see the violent movies or dramas, most of us don't take the contents as a real thing. Many people imagine the violent scene of such movies or dramas, but they don't copy that behavior. Likewise, music with violent or explicit lyrics do not influence crimes. So government do not have to concern about the relation between explicit lyrics and crime rate.
  Nowadays, the standard for music censorship has been alleviated a lot. However, it is still hard to agree that we are living in the world of 'perfect' freedom of expression. Many musicians already hide their real feelings and thoughts and make music with commercial intention. They can't freely express their feelings and thoughts because of music censorship. They must be ensured their freedom of expression. The government do this because the government concern bad influences of music with violent or explicit lyrics on society. However, there is an evidence that those lyrics does not related to crime rate. Musicians are now violated their rights and freedom unnecessarily. Government should not censor all music with violent or explicit lyrics.

Week 12 - Feedback

1) What score do you think you deserve? Here is the rubric:

1 point - The student completes a first draft that demonstrates an understanding of the classical argument

2) What did you do well?

 I choose the unique topic, and i came up with great ideas.
 

3) What could you have done better? 

 I can add more evidence and details that will support my thesis.

4) Which part of the classical argument did you use the best?

 I think my narration part is the best. I suggest the brief knowledge about my topic to audience, and brought the problem up. 

5) Which part of the classical argument did you use the most poorly?

 I think my concession part is most poor. Actually, it is based on opinions almost entirely.

6) What's your strategy to make your second draft better? 

I will suggest examples about how the past Korean government used music censorship for political rationalization.