Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
They say that it takes a Nixon to go to China. During my time in Atlasia, I have staked out a reputation as something of a radical, with a libertine agenda that legalized many things that would never pass muster in actual politics. As has been mentioned during the last campaign, some of this included liberalizing pornography and sex offender reform. Obviously, I am not a man of prudish inclinations, and don't simply wish to ban things because I don't like them.
I am a libertarian, and I think unabridged free expression is a central tenent of society. There are plenty of songs on the radio that I dislike, but would never attempt to ban (even on an internet forum.) Why is it, then, that I have opted to ban Happy but not a slew of other songs? Because I believe Happy "rises to a level" that is fundamentally destructive to our society, and I would argue that it is the duty of the Northeast to prohibit it.
First of all, I would like to note that the idea of music being "banned" in a sense isn't necessarily unprecedented. For instance, in Canada, the song "Money for Nothing" by Dire Straits
was banned on the radio for a brief period of time.What was the offending stanza in question?
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom reads:
To my knowledge, although the moratorium has since been lifted, there was no constitutional challenge. I cite this case as important because the above clause is remarkably simple to the one cited by Scott.
There are some instances of songs being altered in the United States for radio play. One could (rightfully) argue that this alone isn't justification for a whole-hog prohibition of a song. However, there's even been instances of songs being altered in their un-aired form.
I don't know if there's been any specific challenge on cases like these, but this indicates that there's a precedent. If one can inhibit Eminem's artistic expression by censoring certain lyrics, why can one not censor the song outright? Seems like a difference without a distinction.
The plaintiff has cited Article VI as the basis if his argument. I raise him the preamble of the Federal Constitution:
As a public servant, the onus is upon me to actively "promote the general welfare" as it says on the tin. The Northeast government must take a proactive role in this, in the name of good governance. Talking of the Constitution, I would like to cite Article VI, Section 13:
This clause, which is nearly identical to the Eight Amendment to the United States Constitution, prohibits torture.
Can music be torture? Some would argue that it can. The Wall Street Journal writes:
citationMusic can in fact be torture. In addition, two years ago an Iranian facility was
assaulted with AC/DC's "Thunderstruck," which is on par with Happy in terms of sh**tiness. And as if that isn't enough, Pharrell has released
24 hours of Happy, brazenly boasting that it's the "World's First 24 hour music video."
The link above is an orgy of excess. In yet another documentation of music being used as torture,
Clive Stafford Smith at The Guardian writes:And, surprise, surprise, the link of Happy above is a twenty-four hour loop.
In short, I believe a ban on Happy is constitutional because Happy is torture, and the Northeast Assembly ought to protect the public health of its citizenry.
