A Song Is Just a Song; Trying to Silence the Singer Is the Real Abuse : Censorship: There’s no doubt that some rap music is offensive to some people. The issue is, how do we fight bigotry while protecting free speech?

Spokesmen for two prominent Jewish groups are charging that a new song, “Welcome to the Terrordome,” by the rap group Public Enemy is anti-Semitic. To some in the community, this song exemplifies the need for limits to what respectable record companies should release. (Public Enemy is on a CBS label and there have been some calls for CBS to drop the group.) To me--a music-business executive, a civil-libertarian and a Jew--the crescendo of pressure against “Welcome to the Terrordome” exemplifies the dangers of a climate that would tolerate suppressing any type of speech.

From a First Amendment point of view, there is no argument. Anti-Semitic or not, the rap group has every legal right to make a record, and other groups or individuals have every legal right to criticize it. The real issue here lies in the conflict between the need for free expression and the desire to fight bigotry.

Public Enemy became controversial last year when an associate of the group, Professor Griff, made some indisputably anti-Semitic remarks in a Washington newspaper story. Griff’s statement was strongly criticized by the group’s leader and writer, Chuck D., but attacks from the Jewish community and in the media continued until the group broke up. When Public Enemy reunited several months later, Griff, never a musical member of the group, was restored to some advisory role.

Recently, in an unusual effort to gain insight into anti-Semitism, Chuck D. visited the Holocaust Museum at the Simon Wiesenthal Center and spent some time with Rabbi Abraham Cooper, who had criticized the group last year. Notwithstanding this encounter, the rabbi has branded “Welcome to the Terrordome” “definitely anti-Semitic.”

Among the lines the rabbi finds objectionable is one that he believes refers to himself: “I told the Rab to get off the rag.” It is easy to understand why the rabbi and his supporters might be offended by this line, especially since they are unlikely to be familiar with the irreverent slang that defines rap music. Still, a public disagreement with one clergyman is not the same as a slur against an entire religion.

The other phrase singled out as anti-Semitic evidently refers to the Jewish organizations’ attacks on Public Enemy for associating with Griff: “The so-called chosen, frozen . . . apology made to whoever pleases . . . still they got me like Jesus.” Jeffrey Sinesky of the Anti-Defamation League has attacked these lines for “reviving the repulsive and historically discredited charge” that the Jews killed Christ.

With all due respect to the ADL and the Wiesenthal Center, I don’t find these lyrics anti-Semitic. In its entirety, “Welcome to the Terrordome” indicts numerous adversaries, most of them black, who hounded Public Enemy last year.

As for the “crucifixion” reference, this is a popular, almost universal metaphor for tribulations. John Lennon, in a similarly autobiographical song, “The Ballad of John and Yoko,” ended each chorus with the line “the way things are going, they’re gonna crucify me.” For that, he was condemned by Christian groups for being blasphemous. John Lennon wasn’t being anti-Christian, Chuck D. wasn’t reviving a charge of “deicide”; like most artists, they were talking about themselves, trying to communicate their personal feelings.

Non-Jews must wonder what all the fuss is about. After all, many songs by popular artists have lyrics offensive to women, to gays, to blacks, to Catholics, to evangelicals, to people who believe that abortion is murder and so on. Why should Jewish sensitivity be more important, especially given the ambiguity of these particular lyrics?

The fact that my interpretation of these lyrics differs from that of other Jews illustrates the murkiness of categorizing art, but it begs a larger question. I do not see how Jews are any safer in this society by trying to establish rules regarding our own pain and sensitivity that we are not prepared to apply to other groups. How would we make the argument, for example, that “The Last Temptation of Christ” is less offensive to Christians than “Welcome to the Terrordome” is to Jews? Given the amount of energy that has gone into attacking Public Enemy, we should not be surprised if the black community views it as racism to single them out for special treatment.

I am opposed to systematic boycotts even of music I find personally offensive if the result “narrows the marketplace of ideas,” as the hoary language of ACLU policy puts it. There are affirmative ways of attacking bigotry and ugliness in the culture. We can honor and encourage artists that celebrate tolerance and positive values, such as Tracy Chapman, Young MC or U2. As individuals, we can refrain from buying, supporting or working with artists whose message we dislike. We can encourage critics to set aesthetic standards that conform to our moral vision. And most important, we can make a special effort to fight prejudice in our own businesses. What we should not do is succumb to the seductive notion that limitations on speech will do anything to eliminate the things in society we find most distressing.

Restrictions on speech have never helped minorities anywhere. Every gain by minorities in this country coincided with a loosening of restrictions on cultural and political speech. Every repression recorded by history has followed a clampdown on speech.

The old civil-liberties bromide remains true: The way to deal with offensive speech is more speech. From sea to shining sea.

Lies, scandalizin’, basin’, traits I hate, who celebrate with Satan. I rope-a-dope the evil with righteous bobbing and weaving, and let the good get even. Come on down, but welcome to the Terrordome. ‘Welcome to the Terrordome,’ Chuck D.