Howl

          It only took me a few paragraphs of this article to realize that the argument was ridiculous. First of all, the supposedly inappropriate content of the poem "Howl" is nothing compared to what is on the internet today. Anyone can access inappropriate material online at any time, and it's not like people have never been exposed to that type of content before. Everyone knows what sex and drugs and booze is, and if someone feels uncomfortable with those things that they can choose not to listen to "Howl".
          But the part of this article that angered me the most was when the former FCC Commissioner Glen O. Robinson said "Maybe the commission would look differently on it if we were talking about Shakespeare, but Ginsberg isn't Shakespeare."
          Why is Shakespeare allowed to talk about inappropriate topics in his plays but Ginsberg isn't? Some of the content in Shakespeare's writings were just as bad if not worse than what Ginsberg writes in "Howl", and there were no censorship issues back in the sixteenth century. If people stop worrying about what is acceptable and what isn't acceptable and just focus on the art, we wouldn't have controversy over silly things like fines. Just focus on the art.