After the shootings at Columbine last spring, the right wing wasted no time lashing out at Marilyn Manson, KMFDM and “Doom,” blaming them for the horrific actions of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

It seemed like censorship would arise as one of the hottest topics of this election year.

But now that election mania is at its peak, many candidates haven’t addressed censorship at all. Most of them have dodged the issue, opting to convey their ideas about health care, campaign finance reform and the military.

Maybe censorship is too controversial, and when you’re a presidential candidate looking to maintain voter appeal, it’s best to stand clear of it.

Unless you’re Bill Clinton, waving good-bye to the White House without the worry of losing votes in an upcoming election.

During Thursday’s State of the Union Address, Clinton brought up the topic of censorship, offering some ideas that just don’t make sense.

“I want to begin by thanking the entertainment industry for accepting my challenge to put voluntary ratings on TV programs and video and Internet games,” Clinton said. “But, frankly, the ratings are too numerous, diverse and confusing to be really useful to parents. So tonight, I ask the industry to accept the First Lady’s challenge to develop a single voluntary rating system for all children’s entertainment that is easier for parents to understand and enforce.”

Lewinsky scandal aside, Clinton has enacted a lot of legislation compatible with many of the Democratic ideals I consider important.

He’s done wonders for education and been a strong supporter of environmental issues and health care, but when it comes to censorship of entertainment, he’s tended to be a bit on the wishy-washy side.

Current regulations regarding the censorship of entertainment media are completely flawed and can never do justice to what we in this country hold to be an inherent right to freedom of speech and expression.

Rating systems just don’t work.

For years, kids have been sneaking into R-rated movies, and at least renting them at the video store, if they are denied entrance into the theater.

Whether censorship supporters like it or not, kids will always be exposed to lyrics conservatives deem “explicit.”

The infamous black-and-white sticker with the words “Parental Advisory — Explicit Lyrics” just isn’t a valid way of evaluating lyrical content.

In fact, it’s obvious record companies sometimes use the sticker as a marketing tool to sell more albums. The music industry knows much of the appeal of gangsta rap and heavy metal is its rebellious spirit. By applying the sticker to albums, they can attract buyers and listeners.

The American Civil Liberties Union has been a staunch supporter of anti-censorship regulations.

According to the ACLU Web site, the Recording Industry Association of America issued the system of uniform labeling in 1990, offering no guidelines for what should be considered “explicit.”

It affirms the fact that placing the stickers is optional for record companies, and that they can apply it when they see fit.

The ACLU points out that the RIAA has targeted rock and rap albums for explicit lyrics stickers, but not recordings of country music, opera or musical comedy that contain the same “explicit” words or phrases.

Furthermore, while “fuck” could be sprinkled all over the lyrics of one album and not contain a warning sticker, it could appear once on a different album which still cautions for explicit lyrics.

Basically, censorship is another example of the music industry acting as a bureaucracy. The industry wants to be seen as a moralistic entity, looking out for its consumers by applying these stickers.

Warning stickers are just pointless figureheads — puppets used to create an image of the concerned music industry, looking out for its consumers.

In reality, though, record companies don’t care about the content of their products; they just want your money.

Many complain that censorship is important because it helps discourage acts of violence among youth. They use movies and music as a scapegoat, looking for an easy explanation for why tragedies like Columbine occur.

The truth is, we can’t denounce entertainment for corrupting the youth of America. It’s just too simplistic of an explanation. Children are a product of how their parents have shaped them, and their actions reflect this.

Parents should be responsible for the values they instill in their children, not entertainment.

In the months that remain before the election, I want the candidates to talk about the issue of censorship. As a primary consumer of arts and entertainment, censorship is at the top of my list of important issues.

Sooner or later, the time will come for government to consider harsher censorship regulation.

For liberals and advocates of freedom of speech, we can only hope the new person in charge of our country understands the importance of preserving artistic merit and condemns the bastardization of our entertainment.

---

Conor Bezane is a junior in journalism and mass communication from Chicago. He is arts & entertainment editor of the Daily.