It is very difficult in practical terms to enforce such censorship on a national level. This is especially so because of the global nature of many parts of the music industry, including the cross-country appeal of artists and the international availability of media. Therefore, a ban e.g. on sale of uncensored media could possibly be circumvented by Internet-based file swapping.

Censorship would be an effective method of keeping gangsta rap out of the hands of the people who are most susceptible to suffering from its corrosive message. Those who would proactively go to some lengths to obtain the material through black market channels in the event of censorship are not the intended target for such a censorship to affect.

Government censorship is a dangerous form of statist control. Even if one accepts the argument for some limited form of government censorship to protect public morals, this needs to be very precisely and conservatively defined to avoid the slippery slope towards creeping totalitarianism. Allowing censorship of popular culture on grounds that the lyrics are mildly subversive is unwelcome as it incorporates a very expansive view of the proper ambit of government regulation. This issue is properly the concern of parents, who should take more interest in, and responsibility for, the music (and films, TV, internet use) to which their children are exposed.

The government has a moral legitimacy in censoring. People correctly look to the government as the public arbiter of common morals, for the wider social good. It is in line with this role, therefore, for the government to take such steps as it thinks necessary to protect the public morality. This may include censorship of things which are likely to cause moral harm, an approach often manifested in e.g. film classification schemes.

Gangsta rap does not employ negative stereotypes more than is reasonable. Mostly it is a form of social realism which simply tells hard truths that many policymakers would rather pretend did not exist, not least because in part they reflect those policymakers’ own failures. Even where such affirmation is concentrated in such a way as to make it an unrealistic representation of everyday life, this is no worse than the same phenomenon in other forms of popular culture e.g. soap operas.

Gangsta rap is socially corrosive because it affirms negative stereotypes. Much gangsta rap revolves around the affirmation of stereotypes, such as black violence and wife beating. It purports to be social realism but in fact conveys a very selective portrayal of life which reinforces already damaging social stereotypes, of groups who are often poorly placed to campaign successfully by themselves against such portrayal. It is therefore right for government to censor such negative stereotyping, as it often does when regulating e.g. race relations or criminal acts.

Gangsta rap is especially pernicious because it targets the youth market at a crucial, receptive adolescent age. Gangsta rappers clearly seek to appeal to a receptive youthful audience, which is why so many of their images use young people and songs refer to events which would strike an especial chord with adolescents and young adults. This is irresponsible, as it represents an attempt by gangsta rappers to use their power to influence young people with a subversive, anti-societal message.

Gangsta rap encourages listeners to criminality. This is so on two levels. First, it sometimes uses language that actively incites crime, for example encouraging weapons use, spousal abuse or homophobic attacks. Secondly, it glorifies a lifestyle that is rich with imagery of criminality (e.g. gun use and drug dealing) and this sends out a subconscious but consistent message affirming criminality.