Outrage and Ice-T: What Is the Responsibility of the Artist?

Now that Time Warner Inc. is withdrawing the song “Cop Killer” from the market at the request of singer Ice-T, it is possible to put this unpleasant and unwelcome chapter in some perspective.

From the very start the controversy over the Ice-T album “Body Count,” containing the raw and ravening “Cop Killer,” was overblown. The song was scarcely the first piece of alleged entertainment to advocate violence, or even violence against police officers. Considering all the garbage in our contemporary entertainment culture that glorifies violence, it’s safe to say that the one thing Ice-T is not guilty of is originality. And one has only to recall the old pop-reggae tune “I Shot the Sheriff” to realize that Ice-T’s selection of a specific topic wasn’t original, either.

“Cop Killer” provoked an extraordinary nationwide reaction in part because it hit the market in the aftermath of the Los Angeles riots, it appeared to advocate violence against police officers (Tracy Morrow, the L.A.-born performer’s real name, denies this) and it was aggressively distributed by a media conglomerate, Time Warner, which was attacked for releasing the song.

ARTISTIC FREEDOM MUST HAVE BREATHING ROOM: The issues raised by this controversy are sure to arise again and again. Ice-T isn’t the first commercial artist to assault the boundaries of plain good taste and moral common sense--and he won’t be the last. The question therefore is: Is an artist within his or her rights to produce something as offensive as this? And at the same time, are people within their rights to object strenuously to it? The answer to both questions is yes.

Except for the prototypical exception--such as falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater--freedom of speech and expression needs to be granted the widest possible berth. An economic boycott of an artistic product, however objectionable it might be, is very different from a boycott of, say, an objectionable government (Iraq now, for example, or South Africa at one time). Such an action is also very different from an economic boycott in pursuit of basic human rights, such as the 1960s’ civil rights boycotts. By contrast, boycotts based on offensive content--those against films, books or music--inevitably constrict society’s ability to foster the most tolerant possible atmosphere. Indeed, the objectionable statement needs more protection: An environment that protects and nurtures only the artistic expressions that most people agree with obviously isn’t worth much. Freedom of expression is fundamental in a democracy.

Controversy in itself is certainly not proof that a piece of literature or music is art; but history shows that much of what society now regards as high art--Flaubert’s “Madame Bovary,” Stravinsky’s “The Rite of Spring”--was received at first with hostility. To be sure, “Cop Killer” is not great art; on the contrary it seems an artless and mediocre effort. But the history of artistic expression--the need to be provocative, adventuresome--reminds us of the need for the greatest measure of tolerance, and of the need to discourage all forms of censorship and repression, whether governmental or economic. Moreover, throughout history, art has reflected culture. Rock ‘n’ roll historically has taken a lot of heat, not only for bad taste but at times because society hasn’t wanted to face up to the real conflicts that art uses as its material. Can listening to a record turn a kid into a racist or a cop killer or a woman beater? Or do real-life societal ills do that? As a statement by the National Black Police Assn. put it, Ice-T “is entitled to voice his anger and frustration with the conditions facing oppressed people.”

PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO PROTEST: Even so, though the First Amendment endows the artist with rights, there’s no constitutional obligation for the would-be audience to pay attention. People don’t have to listen, read or view a product they regard as loathsome.

And it is within their right to participate in an economic boycott, even though in our view such boycotts are unwise. Generally boycotts call more attention to the product being objected to (Ice-T’s album sales soared as the controversy intensified); and they add to an atmosphere of repression and encourage politicians to get involved--always a dangerous turn. The best way to lodge a protest is not to purchase the specific product--don’t buy the album, go to the movie, buy the book, tune in the program. And leave it at that. Still, the economic-boycott option is as constitutionally protected an act as a loathsome rock song.

THERE ARE RESPONSIBILITIES TOO: Consider the waves of corrosive misogyny, not to mention the anti-police content, in “Body Count.” That puts it in the dubious tradition of a long line of exploitative commercial work, along with heavy-metal songs that bash gays, women or minorities and unredeeming movies that glorify violence and portray cops as maniacal avengers or create maniacal avengers to kill good cops. There’s plenty of disgust to go around. But as the Supreme Court affirmed this year, in this free society even hate speech--though not action--is protected.

But that doesn’t mean we have to embrace such speech. That’s why those who make and promote such work should remember that while Americans highly value their strong First Amendment rights, they weary of the Constitution being trotted out to justify any hate-filled, titillating venom that hits the airwaves or bookstores. With freedom comes responsibility. And with each violation of reasonable standards of taste and respect there is the danger that society will be tempted to become less tolerant.

The Ice-Ts of the world come and go. But the issue of responsibility--of the artist, of the producer, of the publisher--remains. Where to draw the (self-imposed) line? That’s the difficult issue they must wrestle with.