The 1980's song "Money for nothing" by Dire Straits has been banned by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council because of one listener in St. Johns Newfoundland who complained that the song contained the word faggot in its lyrics. Is this political correctness gone mad? or is it a legitimate concern that these types of lyrics are offensive and should be removed?
If the Canadian government can censor songs with this word in it then they have a long road ahead of them. There are a lot of songs that have been done since then that are far more offensive in lyric and video content than Money for Nothing. Does this mean that musicians are going to have to watch what they sing or face having the CBSC leer over them with a mega censorship hammer? So far the public reaction has been one of dismay, shock and outrage that a single complaint has caused all this controversy and drama.
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/music/story/2011/01/13/money-for-nothing-radio-play-censor.html (http://www.cbc.ca/arts/music/story/2011/01/13/money-for-nothing-radio-play-censor.html)
Lame.
what needs to be done if the CBSC is going to start censoring musicians is the musicians in Canada need to start producing more offensive material so much of it that the CBSC has way to much work on their hands and just gives up and lifts the censors on what they have already censored. But then again this is just my opinion and no body really needs to think much on it :P ;)
What a load of sillyness. :P
The sole reason that rock came to be in the first place was to offend people. To listen to a rock song and then allow yourself to be offended by it is pretty redundant.
On the other hand, it's only being banned censored from Canadian stations. The music itself hasn't been made illegal. Given the minority of people that would be offended versus the minority that strongly support the song, I don't see this as a big deal. It sounds like a micropolitical issue that we needn't worry about.
i strongly disagree with this.ive read lyrics that are beyond the realm of indecent. i mean cannibal corpse has lyrics about ripping entrails from virgins; far more worse lyrics then saying "faggot", even classical Opera has text about killing, death. they cant censor every song that has profanity in it,that listeners may find offensive. if you don't like it, don't listen to it!.
Works like "Money For Nothing" need to be seen as products of their times. Moreover, I don't believe Mark Knopfler was honestly trying to insult gays with his lyrics - it was written from the point of view of an envious blue-collar worker and was meant to be ironic.
Some people have trouble with irony and would rather obsess about the content of the message rather than its intent.
"The right not to be offended" is not enshrined anywhere in our Charter. Ezra Levant wrote on that in Shakedown: How our government is undermining democracy in the name of human rights (http://ezralevant.com/2009/03/shakedown.html), which is a really interesting read.
And yeah, buddy, that is his own hair. :)
Cannibal Corpse is not played on the radio. Although, under this ruling, they theoretically could ban all gansta rap songs due to certain other words being used. Besides, normally they just edit the song to cut the offensive word out. I doubt the ruling will last, or they will get a "radio" version with the word removed.
: Zen January 15, 2011, 03:16:31 -07:00
Cannibal Corpse is not played on the radio. Although, under this ruling, they theoretically could ban all gansta rap songs due to certain other words being used. Besides, normally they just edit the song to cut the offensive word out. I doubt the ruling will last, or they will get a "radio" version with the word removed.
Roger Waters is a bit of a homophobe though. Especially if you listen to certain songs from The Wall.
really? i hear Cannibal Corpse on the radio all the tiem XD
Really? Where??
I listen to online-based radio stations, but those aren't covered by the CBSC. Then again, the kind of stuff I enjoy listening to wouldn't pass CBSC.
The CBSC uses a complaint driven process. So the reason other more offensive songs are not censored is because no one (or not enough) people complained.
It's shit like this Canada...
Censorship is never, ever, ever good. Either it's all sacred or nothing is sacred. And I don't see anyone censoring Toby fucking Keith, but "the little faggot has his own jet airplane" somehow has everybody up in arms. It was more than 25 years ago, and they censor it now. Jesus, I'm getting a boombox, going down to Granville and B-Way and blasting it for hours in protest.
: Zen January 15, 2011, 03:16:31 -07:00
I doubt the ruling will last, or they will get a "radio" version with the word removed.
Bleh. I think I'd rather it just not be played at all. I don't want to tacitly go with their decision by listening to a censored version.
I'll just find an uncensored version somewhere if I want to listen to it. If a censored version is released I will actually change the station rather than listen to it.
: terutt January 16, 2011, 01:19:56 -07:00
It's shit like this Canada...
Censorship is never, ever, ever good.
Not having media able to preach religion to you
Removal of Propaganda
Removal of Hate speech
Prevention of inciting riots
Libel
A little from column A, a little from B, Ember. Censorship does protect the public as a whole from things they may or may not actually want to be protected from. I appreciate the protection from preaching (Though how much of that actually holds true remains to be seen, what with the 'We'll help starving children by feeding them and jamming Jesus into their heads' commercials, and the Mormon ads that occasionally pop up). I do not appreciate political correctness, which forces disingenuous, cautious speech on the general public, sponsoring a culture that thrives on half-truths and softened reality without the skin to take an actual blow. Unfortunately, it's one of those social grey areas; The only decision-maker about what line's crossed is opinion, and it's hard to truly sample what the majority opinion actually is. Most people who give a damn are shrieky-noisy about it. Most people who don't are quietly content. Unfortunately, this means that the content majority is often overridden by a noisy minority with an agenda.
The only advice I have to Canada on topics like this? Grow a pair and move on. A 25 year old instance of the word "fag" bothers them that deeply? Shit, while you're at it, ban Team Fortress 2, Counterstrike, and every online game for having thousands on thousands of "omg hacking fag" and similar remarks flying at all times. Grow up, Canada.
: Ember January 16, 2011, 06:59:48 -07:00
: terutt January 16, 2011, 01:19:56 -07:00
It's shit like this Canada...
Censorship is never, ever, ever good.
Not having media able to preach religion to you
Removal of Propaganda
Removal of Hate speech
Prevention of inciting riots
Libel
I like all of those except for the fourth.
Every now and then I think we could use a good riot.
: Ember January 16, 2011, 06:59:48 -07:00
Not having media able to preach religion to you
Removal of Propaganda
Removal of Hate speech
Prevention of inciting riots
Libel
Not everyone agrees with everything on this list being "good". I'm on the fence about the "hate speech" thing, myself - the line between free speech and inciting violence can be fuzzy. I wouldn't like it if some guy got on TV and called me a disease-spreading bisexual degenerate, but equally, would I be okay with a restriction on my ability to call him a hatemongering fundie wingnut?
Anyway, not trying to start a big debate. I just don't think you can assume that everything on that list is an unquestionable good.
I never said all of those things were unquestionably good.
He said "Censorship is never, ever, ever good."
In the cases I have given, very clearly in some instances censorship can be good.
: Ember January 17, 2011, 11:44:13 -07:00
I never said all of those things were unquestionably good.
He said "Censorship is never, ever, ever good."
In the cases I have given, very clearly in some instances censorship can be good.
Exactly, and we can go into how the government controls and puts limits on advertising that protects you as a consumer which most people would say is inherently good or protecting a potentially innocent person from a lifetime of criminal stigma because they were arrested
Let me tone down what I said a little. You should not dilute discourse. Everyone should get a voice. Crazies, racists, and religiosity included.
You can't censor propaganda, because the the two concepts are parallel. One gives an organization a voice, the other removes the voice from another separate organization. One man's propaganda, is another man's television commercial, or textbook. Propaganda does not have to be false or omitting in any way to be propaganda.
I'm not against consumer protection, but there is a chasm of difference between gaining profit off of lies, and not harming an alarmingly small percentage of the population's precious virgin ears.
Also, hate speech is actually protected in this country, unless the hater hated on the hatee over CRTC controlled media.
Libel claims are not censorship, they are consequences to using freedom of speech a little too freely.
The big thing I have a problem with is, as stated above, the CRTC. It's nanny state in action.
: terutt January 17, 2011, 04:43:14 -07:00Also, hate speech is actually protected in this country, unless the hater hated on the hatee over CRTC controlled media.
Not true. Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/page-6.html#codese:318) define the offences of "Advocating Genocide" and "Public Incitement of Hatred"; neither require communicating over CRTC-controlled media (they pretty much cover all their bases with "any audible or visible means").
Pff I am ok with hearing 'bitch' and what sounds like 'fuck me'... *looks it up* Yep. Pinks 'Stupid Girls' has this in the lyrics: 'Pretty will you **** me girl, silly as a lucky girl' and I am pretty sure that when I am listening to it, it does say 'fuck' and isn't censored. 'Faggot' doesn't really upset me either. I mean, I prefer not to hear it, but I don't really care if it is in a song when I can't tell what it says.
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com100/2011/r110121.htm (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com100/2011/r110121.htm)
Looks like the CRTC is asking the CBSC to review their decision, because, you know, it was stupid to begin with. c.c
But if I really say it, the radio won't play it
Unless I lay it between the lines
-Peter, Paul & Mary