mattiasc02 said:
But I think it had a very great message, the poem. Talking about how apparently there are bright minds that could make wonders but are overlooked in that society. Like didn't that poem have a huge impact on like how obscenity is viewed in society?
I agree completely.

When Ginsberg’s “Howl” was published in 1956, it created a massive cultural impact and shocked a conservative society that was still coming to terms with the birth of rock ‘n’ roll. Remember, rock music was frowned upon by the elder generation, who considered it to be an instrument of the Devil. Supposedly it drove teenagers to promiscuity and crime. *facepalm*

So, just imagine yourself living in the mid-1950's and along comes this poem which features the line, “who let themselves be f**ked in the ass by saintly motorcyclists, and screamed with joy.” The conservative establishment would have felt as though their perfect, puritan world was collapsing right before their very eyes, and that Armageddon had arrived. Talk about shattering the social barriers.

But, you’re right. Beyond the references to illicit drugs and sex (heterosexual and homosexual), the poem does contain profound and pertinent messages. Sadly, these messages are still relevant today.

“Howl” is divided into three distinct parts, or acts. The first is about how political and cultural conservatism has destroyed the best minds of the poet’s generation. The second is a rage against Moloch, the symbol of human engineering that creates a society of dehumanized and drone-like conformists. The third is an address to a friend in a mental asylum, who’s been driven insane by mad society.

In 1957, California Judge Clayton W. Horn ruled that Ginsberg’s poem wasn’t obscene. Here is an excerpt from his final argument:

“There are a number of words used in “Howl” that are presently considered coarse and vulgar in some circles of the community; in other circles such words are in everyday use... The author of “Howl” has used those words because he believed that his portrayal required them as being in character... No two persons think alike; we were all made from the same mold but in different patterns. Would there be any freedom of press or speech if one must reduce his vocabulary to vapid innocuous euphemism? An author should be real in treating his subject and be allowed to express his thoughts and ideas in his own words.”

Truer words have never been spoken. If it were not for Horn’s ruling, Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer and D.H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover might not have seen publication in the United States... ever.

EDIT: I apologize for the length of my recent posts... even though I’ve kept on topic. In the future, I’ll endeavor to make sure that they’re not too long.