Steiner, Chapter 2; Readings on 2007 Congressional hearings on rap/hip-hop

While reading these passages, I found myself a little angery as well as confused as to why the government is so envolved with art in society. How are two very different things being grouped together? When we think of art now, why do we wonder what the government is doing about it and so on?
The feminist and pornography issues, contest that pornography somehow physically harms women. Just watching porn is physically harmful to women? I think if anything it would be on a more emotional and phsycological level than "physical." Can this form of "art" really cause harm? If someone to just view it I don't think that it can cause physical harm, how can something cause you harm when nothing is? Viewing something cannot create physical harm. Yes I am sure that there are violent images and videos out that that don't seem pleasurable but yet they are considered porn, and yes to the actual person, it may be harmful, but to the viewer? I don't think it can do the same. Just as there are those violent images out there, what about the images that are not violent, like just two people acting in a sexual manner, or even the "role playing" porn out there. You can't say these things are what is causing rape and derogatory actions towards women. I found it interesting that Steiner said that pornography is often protected by the first amendment. So, our government is protecting porn?
"Hip Hop is sick because America is sick," what an interesting way to put it. I find that true. If the lyrics to a rap song, are sick it is because of the artist who chose those words, or the society who thinks that is acceptable that is the reason why "hip hop is sick." It is not the music form or actual music that is "sick." Not all hip hop and rap is "sick" though, and not saying that is generalizing the term too much. There are Christian rappers, believe it or not, that convey very different messages in the same way the "sick" rapper do.