The constitution was written in 1787 to be used as the supreme law of the United States.

Our most essential freedoms were outlined for us hundreds of years ago, although today some

of those freedoms come with limitations. The first amendment gives American citizens the right

to freedom of speech, but what happens when people, such as musicians, take that right too

far? Musicians are well-known for exercising their first amendment rights through the creation of

their music, but that does not come without controversy. In the cases of 2 live crew and Ice

Cube, these musicians first amendment rights were called into question due to the provocative

nature of their music. Although both artists prevailed, this called into question how much the first

amendment truly protects our freedom of speech. The general public isn’t always going to agree

with everything an artist says, but does that give them a right to try to erase their work? Should

there be a limit on how much an artist can say in their work?

On September 25th, 1789, Congress passed the First Amendment, which was ratified on

December 15th, 1791. The first amendment states that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof; abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or

the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a

redress of grievances."

In other words, citizens have rights to these specifics in which the government

has no control over. The amendment was established to protect citizens and let them

express themselves without punishment from the law. According to History.com, the

U.S. supreme court has "struggled to determine what types of speech is protected"

underneath the amendment. Material that is deemed obscene has been ruled out from

the first amendment because obscenity is in the eye of the beholder. Throughout the

past 250 years, the first amendment has protected many statements and petitions, but

many questions if the amendment should protect musicians.

 Musicians have always expressed feelings throughout their work of art; from

childhood experiences to crushes on a significant other as well as political views. The

first amendment ensures artists that the opinions they express in their songs are free

from government interference. That would also mean that the music videos musicians

use to bring a song to life should be included in that right. The controversy comes when

artists create specific videos or lyrics that may be categorized as obscene to certain

viewers. There have been cases where musicians who speak violently and/or sexually in

their music have caused problems. Courts have protected musicians against these

charges to a certain extent, which brings us to the groundbreaking court case of

Skyywalker records v. Navarro.

In February 1989, 2 live crew released their third studio album "As Nasty As They

Wanna Be." The album featured the songs "Me So Horny" and "Dirty Nursery Rhymes."

Controversy also came from the album cover art, which depicted four women in bikinis

facing backward in the center of the photo. After carefully reviewing the cover art, one of

the ladies is topless. Though the album received a great deal of negative attention, the

song "Me So Horny" peaked at the top 40 despite no radio airplay. The album was so

raunchy and graphic that it became a fan favorite with teenagers around the country. "As

Nasty As They Wanna Be" had commercial success selling two million units across the

country. The success of the album did not sit well with many residents in Florida. In

February 1990, one year after the album was released, a Broward County sheriff's

officer purchased the album and had it transcribed. After listening to the album, the

officer prepared an affidavit and requested that the album should be declared legally

obscene. Distribution of the album became illegal after a local Florida judge listened to

the album and had reason to believe the album was obscene. After this ruling, a local

record store owner in Florida was arrested for selling the album to an undercover officer.

In addition, 2 live crew themselves were also arrested for performing the songs on the
album. These series of events led Skyywalker records to file a suit against officer Nick

Navarro stating he "unconstitutionally overstepped his bounds." On May 7th, 1992, after

a few months of trial, the Court of Appeals in Atlanta overturned Judge Jose Gonzalez's

ruling. The supreme court later upheld this ruling. One of the members from 2 live crew,

Luke Cambell stated: "this isn't just a victory for 2 live crew, the entire music won big

with this one." Although "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" was a turning point for musicians

to say what they please in their lyrics, it was not the first instance.

On October 29th,1991, rapper Ice Cube released his second studio album titled

"Death Certificate." This album dealt with the problematic upbringings in Compton,

California, as well as political views from the rapper. Two songs from the album, "No

Vaseline" and "Black Korea" left a bad taste in the mouths of many citizens. "No

Vaseline" was a diss record to Ice Cube's former rap group N.W.A. and their former

manager. He raps, "Cause you can't be the ni**a for life crew, with a white jew telling you

what to do." This bar alone sparked flames across the country, especially within the

jewsih community. The Simon Wiesenthal Center condemned "Death Certificate," stating

that many of the songs were racist. On "Black Korea," Cube raps, "so pay respect to

theblack fist, or we'll burn your store right down to a crisp." The Korean community did

not favor these lyrics at all. This song was influenced by the trial of a Korean woman

who shot and killed a 15-year-old black girl and later sentenced to probation. At that

time, many viewed that statement as a direct threat and wanted Cube to be punished for

saying such a thing. However, Ice Cube was allowed to continue to perform that song.

Musicians do have freedom when it comes to what they can say in their music, but how

can the first amendment be improved to ensure artists do not go too far?

From the rulings of Skyywalker Records v. Navarro, musicians now have the

right to say anything they please in their lyrics basically. Taking a look at most of the

music today, plenty of musicians have given a play by play of their sexual life, or a
detailed description of the crimes they have committed. Other artists have expressed

their feelings towards current president Donald Trump and the things they would like to

do to him. After carefully listening to a majority of songs where musicians have

expressed their deepest feelings, there need to be stronger amendment regulations.

Yes, freedom of speech should continue to allow artists to express the feelings they

have, but to a certain extent. Implying that you want to murder someone, inciting riots, or

even causing danger, should not be allowed. Musicians need to be more conscious of

the content they create because their music is more than just music; it is a way of life to

some. Musicians have the power to influence and need to be more mindful when

creating these beautiful songs. A limit on what can be said would not only protect the

citizens; it would protect them as well.