# Dire Straits' 'Money for Nothing' should be censored, broadcast panel rules



## Morkolo

Dire Straits' 'Money for Nothing' should be censored, broadcast panel rules

By The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press – Wed, 12 Jan 8:54 PM EST

OTTAWA - The 1980s song "Money for Nothing" by the British rock band Dire Straits has been deemed unacceptable for play on Canadian radio.

In a ruling released Wednesday, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council says the song contravenes the human rights clauses of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters' Code of Ethics and Equitable Portrayal Code.

A listener to radio station CHOZ-FM in St. John's, N.L., complained last year that the song includes the word "******" in its lyrics and is discriminatory to gays.

The broadcaster argued that the song had been played countless times since its release decades ago and has won music industry awards.

A CBSC panel concluded that the word "******," even if once acceptable, has evolved to become unacceptable in most circumstances.

The panel noted that "Money for Nothing" would be acceptable for broadcast if suitably edited.

Link to the original story here:

Dire Straits' 'Money for Nothing' should be censored, broadcast panel rules - Yahoo! News




I'm not sure if I can understand a world where Mark Knopfler is censored on the radio and so much else isn't.


----------



## Guest

Counting more than a few ******s in my list of close friends, the only people that think that word is offensive are the cloistered and close-minded. Certainly none of the ******s I hang out with do.


----------



## hollowbody

Jeez...I hate when people indiscriminately label something as racist, homophobic, offensive, whatever without looking into the context. The song is telling a story and the character watching the TV and calling the musicians ******s is just that, a CHARACTER!

Earlier this week I read about a publisher in the States who is going to release Twain's Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer without the N-word in them, because it's too hard for teachers to teach kids these novels with that word in. The publisher agrees that Twain's work _should_ be taught, that it is _worth_ teaching, just not as it was written. As a teacher myself, I think it's ridiculous. I'd much rather teach an unedited version. It's pointless to teach a watered-down version. Same goes for countless other books - Catcher springs to mind. It's all about context, not taking certain words or phrases out of context and fearing them because they are historically correct and accurately exhibit the era someone is trying to portray.

People really need to stop being so politically correct. It's not making the world a better place, it's setting the groundwork for an absurd level of censorship. This isn't freakin' Iran or North Korea! I thought we lived in a progressive country with a democratic government that let the public have its voice!


----------



## bobb

Too lazy to go looking but didn't they release an inoffensive version for AM radio play at the time? 

Even Steve Earle had trouble with Guitar Town and had to change 
"Everybody told me you can't get far
On thirty-seven dollars and a jap guitar" 

to "Everybody told me you can't get far
On thirty-seven dollars and a *cheap* guitar"


----------



## hollowbody

bobb said:


> Too lazy to go looking but didn't they release an inoffensive version for AM radio play at the time?
> 
> Even Steve Earle had trouble with Guitar Town and had to change
> "Everybody told me you can't get far
> On thirty-seven dollars and a jap guitar"
> 
> to "Everybody told me you can't get far
> On thirty-seven dollars and a *cheap* guitar"


Sort of. There was pressure to edit the song, but they cut it down to shorten it for radio play by reducing the length of the intro and deleting that verse. Ostensibly, it was to accommodate broadcast length for radio stations, but obviously since they chose that particular verse to nix, I'm sure the controversy had something to do with it.


----------



## Morkolo

bobb said:


> Too lazy to go looking but didn't they release an inoffensive version for AM radio play at the time?
> 
> Even Steve Earle had trouble with Guitar Town and had to change
> "Everybody told me you can't get far
> On thirty-seven dollars and a jap guitar"
> 
> to "Everybody told me you can't get far
> On thirty-seven dollars and a *cheap* guitar"


Gibson probably pushed for that one! sigiifa


----------



## shoretyus

bobb said:


> to "Everybody told me you can't get far
> On thirty-seven dollars and a *cheap* guitar"


and he's still right


----------



## mhammer

In many respects, people who administer social policies should not, and can not, be expected to exercise any more flexibility than the "green hornet" parking meter/ overseers or customs inspectors and border guards. I'm not saying they exercise their responsibility wisely, or that the policy they apply is drafted in the wisest manner possible. But if you let those who apply policies and laws have room for latitude to exercise judgment "within context", things very quickly fall out of calibration. That's precisely how one person gets a suspended sentence and 18months probation for killing someone while driving drunk, and another person gets 10 years for an offence with much less impact on others.

When it comes to *consistently* identifying language and public displays or actions that jeopardize the rights of identifiable groups, or compromise the broader sense of community, don't expect miracles, and do expect those tasked with it to put blinders on and just *do the job*.

Do members of identifiable groups use terms to refer to each other that would be construed as offensive and exclusionary if someone outside their group used them? Sure. Should we tell those who oversee the public airwaves that if the rap artist's skin is lighter than a certain hue (within the context of the lighting used for the video) or their nasal dimensions and hair texture does not meet certain criteria that they cannot use a particular word in their lyrics, but all those who meet the criteria are free to do so? Or do we simply say "Look this doesn't need to be part of public discourse. There are more socially inclusive replacements, and nobody's 'artistic freedom' is being suppressed, so just apply the rule to everybody."

What I suspect people find jarring about the item is that it is not an alteration applied to new material, but to something that has been around so long it feels like part of the public domain. The understandable reaction is "Since when did this suddenly turn subversive?". Of course, calling people various epithets for their African origins, Jewish, Italian, Irish, South Asian, or East Asian origins, or for their sexual orientation, has also been around so long it feels like the public domain. Doesn't make it acceptable.

What likely drives people absolutely up the wall, across the ceiling, and down the other side, is the inconsistency across mediums. *ALL* of the language referred to in this thread would be permissible within the context of books or films, and certainly much of it can be heard in the context of television or radio interviews preceded by a language warning. What throws folks is when different standards appear to be applied to those media and music videos or some other specific format. I'm sure George Carlin and Lenny Bruce would have something to say about it were they here.


----------



## GuitarsCanada

I never used to even think about things like that when I heard them. Meaning I never gave any thought to what that person may have felt when they heard it. Just never gave it any thought. But now, maybe because I am much older and maybe a little wiser, I do give it a little thought. If it is not directed at you than you can't or don't feel anything. Maybe even find it amusing given its context. What may seem totally trivial to one person may feel very different to someone else. I remember way back at a George Carlin concert (speaking of George above) and he was doing a riff about the "pussification" (sp?) of the male race. He was ranting on about how even all the names of boys had gone soft. He was rattling off names and the crowd was howling at each one and then he said "Scott". Well, not like I was crushed but you kind of go "huh?" and you don't turn to the person next to you and say "hey, my name is Scott". I was not hurt by it and not even offended, but that's just the way I am, I don't really give a hoot about a lot of things. But for someone that already feels totally useless for whatever reason maybe it just added one more thing to the list of why they should go jump off a bridge.

Very small example I admit, but like I said, when things are not directed at you personally they seem not to be such a big thing. When they are, they hold a different meaning.

I have a buddy who is from Barbados. Have known him for 25 years. He used to tell us all kinds of stories of things that would happen to him. Tiny little episodes that for most people would mean nothing, but then again, we white folk never experienced any of it. He used to laugh about it himself. He told us of a incident where he was at a big golf tourny (he is a major golfer) and there were a bunch of people lined up getting coffee before the tourny. He waited in line and noticed that everyone had a china cup and saucer in their hands. When he finally got up to the front he was given his coffee in a styrafoam cup. We pissed ourselves laughing at he story, primarily because of the way he used to tell us these things. But essentially, he has lived his whole life with these tiny little occurrences.


----------



## Starbuck

Well when they are talking about censoring Huck Finn.. I dunno, I think that you shouldn't mess with Art. It's like a piece of history.


----------



## hollowbody

GuitarsCanada said:


> I never used to even think about things like that when I heard them. Meaning I never gave any thought to what that person may have felt when they heard it. Just never gave it any thought. But now, maybe because I am much older and maybe a little wiser, I do give it a little thought. If it is not directed at you than you can't or don't feel anything. Maybe even find it amusing given its context. What may seem totally trivial to one person may feel very different to someone else. I remember way back at a George Carlin concert (speaking of George above) and he was doing a riff about the "pussification" (sp?) of the male race. He was ranting on about how even all the names of boys had gone soft. He was rattling off names and the crowd was howling at each one and then he said "Scott". Well, not like I was crushed but you kind of go "huh?" and you don't turn to the person next to you and say "hey, my name is Scott". I was not hurt by it and not even offended, but that's just the way I am, I don't really give a hoot about a lot of things. But for someone that already feels totally useless for whatever reason maybe it just added one more thing to the list of why they should go jump off a bridge.
> 
> Very small example I admit, but like I said, when things are not directed at you personally they seem not to be such a big thing. When they are, they hold a different meaning.


I get that, but that's also part of Knopfler's point. He's highlighting how people who are part of groups (be it racial, sexual, gender, etc.) that are subject to irrational stereotypes can overcome those shackles and become successful and how, in the 80's when so much was attributed to what you own, how much you make, etc., this is utterly baffling to a working-class stiff. In this case, I don't think there's anything negative at all about this particular aspect of the song. Knopfler is simultaneously denouncing the materialistic attitude of the 80's and making some pretty succinct social commentary about how minority groups are pigeonholed by the average joe. All via a pretty awesome song. Brilliant. 

There's no way this song should censored. There are way too many songs that denigrate minority groups for absolutely no reason other than to be controversial that are much better targets for this sort of investigation. No one's wandering around the Louvre and painting black lines over the nudes in Renoir's works.


----------



## GuitarsCanada

hollowbody said:


> I get that, but that's also part of Knopfler's point. He's highlighting how people who are part of groups (be it racial, sexual, gender, etc.) that are subject to irrational stereotypes can overcome those shackles and become successful and how, in the 80's when so much was attributed to what you own, how much you make, etc., this is utterly baffling to a working-class stiff. In this case, I don't think there's anything negative at all about this particular aspect of the song. Knopfler is simultaneously denouncing the materialistic attitude of the 80's and making some pretty succinct social commentary about how minority groups are pigeonholed by the average joe. All via a pretty awesome song. Brilliant.
> 
> There's no way this song should censored. There are way too many songs that denigrate minority groups for absolutely no reason other than to be controversial that are much better targets for this sort of investigation. No one's wandering around the Louvre and painting black lines over the nudes in Renoir's works.


I would not attempt to even give an opinion on whether it should be censored or not. Very complex issue. Your explanation of the song and its intention in the lyrics is fine by me, but is it understood that way by everyone that ever hears it. There is no pre-recorded message saying "this is what the lyrics mean". So agian, I think these things mean different things to many people. I get where you are coming from though.


----------



## traynor_garnet

hollowbody said:


> Jeez...I hate when people indiscriminately label something as racist, homophobic, offensive, whatever without looking into the context. The song is telling a story and the character watching the TV and calling the musicians ******s is just that, a CHARACTER!


Nailed it Hollowbody. Within the context of the song, the use of the term is actually aimed against the character who says it. This is a character who, in my reading, completely ignores the harsh reality of the music business, knows nothing of the poverty Dire Straits lived in before they were big, and is simply ignorant of the world outside of his working class conditions. The term is an expression of his (enforced) ignorance, a reflection and condemnation of of class conditions, and a way of showing the character's close mindedness. It isn't a literal slur against homosexuals but does offer a more general commentary on how the term "***" or "that's gay" is a manifestation of inequality and intolerance in our society.

For any of you who have said "what the hell is the use of taking arts" or have made a distinction between "the real world" and "artsy fartsy", here is a perfect example of why critical thinking and arts are important. We have a group of people trying to enforce a worthy piece of public policy but they simply lack the skills to actually do it. The "real world" is cannot limited to what is taught in business courses (in fact, that is the most unreal, arbitrary stuff you could teach!)

TG


----------



## Beach Bob

I'm pretty certain that even when the song was released that there were two versions of it. IIRC, the second version substituted "queeny" for the what now seems to have riled up the censors 25 years later...


----------



## hollowbody

Beach Bob said:


> I'm pretty certain that even when the song was released that there were two versions of it. IIRC, the second version substituted "queeny" for the what now seems to have riled up the censors 25 years later...


The funny thing is that Q107 in Toronto has been unabashedly playing the original version for years now. Last time I checked, Toronto has a much larger LGBT community than probably all of Atlantic Canada combined, nevermind just St. John's. You never hear of anyone complaining here.

Fact: My band wants to do this song.
Fact: We were concerned about the reception of it by members of the LGBT community
Fact: We asked friends and acquaintances who ARE gay, lesbian, etc about their stance.
Fact: They ALL said the song kicks ass and we should do it unadulterated 

We did the same thing when we were thinking of adding Brown Sugar. No one wants to rankle feathers, but I was pretty surprised when I had gay men and black women telling me to go ahead with both songs. Why did I think that they would say no??? Because all this PC mumbo-jumbo rewired my noodle to make me think that every time I opened my mouth, I should be watching every single word I say.


----------



## RIFF WRATH

just plain rediculous........I am of English and Irish heritage and the word ******, (get me a ****** of wood) refers to a simple device made of string fastened to a piece of metal , used for carrying smaller pieces of wood.........the old dude on the Led Zep cover is carring one.............*** or ****** in both England and Ireland referres to a cigarette.........I would suggest that Knoffler and Sting were being colloqual (sp ?) than actually being offensive...........now, if they had said pufter then there might be cause for alarm..........next we won,t be able to call Newfies..well...Newfies.........lol.........how come it took all this time to become offensive.........anyone remember when they were destroying Elvis and the Beatles music as well because rock & roll was the devils music.........next they will be banning metal music because of the band names......... I am soooooooo tired of political correctness......there certainly examples of downright biggotry and racism.....this is not one of them.....cheers, Gerry


----------



## GuitarsCanada

traynor_garnet said:


> Nailed it Hollowbody. Within the context of the song, the use of the term is actually aimed against the character who says it. This is a character who, in my reading, completely ignores the harsh reality of the music business, knows nothing of the poverty Dire Straits lived in before they were big, and is simply ignorant of the world outside of his working class conditions. The term is an expression of his (enforced) ignorance, a reflection and condemnation of of class conditions, and a way of showing the character's close mindedness. It isn't a literal slur against homosexuals but does offer a more general commentary on how the term "***" or "that's gay" is a manifestation of inequality and intolerance in our society.
> 
> For any of you who have said "what the hell is the use of taking arts" or have made a distinction between "the real world" and "artsy fartsy", here is a perfect example of why critical thinking and arts are important. We have a group of people trying to enforce a worthy piece of public policy but they simply lack the skills to actually do it. The "real world" is cannot limited to what is taught in business courses (in fact, that is the most unreal, arbitrary stuff you could teach!)
> 
> TG


That is an intensely deep analyzation of the lyrics of that song (which I don't necessarily disagree with, but I did not write it). But you simply cannot expect every member of the general public to analyze it in the same way. You have to think of the uneducated, non-artsy 16 year old kid that is hearing it as well. Again, I don't really care, I dont have an issue with the song and don't really care what they do with it. I just merely point out that not everyone is going to hear that song and interpret it in the same way.


----------



## Rahlstin

"******"

No wonder its offensive. Look at all the little ** in it. Thats alot of shift 8's. Next thing we'll have is all the porn will have to be with thier clothes on....


----------



## keeperofthegood

Hmm does it matter? Broadcast TV is rapidly becoming a thing of the past and radio is not too far behind it. In fact, if you get the new Motorola Atrix cell phone, it comes with dual core, flash, firefox AND usb device support AND HDTV out. You can phone up and stream netfix whenever/where ever you want. The CRTC is within very few years of becoming a white elephant as the medium it was created to regulate disappears.


----------



## gtrguy

GONE


----------



## mhammer

hollowbody said:


> I get that, but that's also part of Knopfler's point. He's highlighting how people who are part of groups (be it racial, sexual, gender, etc.) that are subject to irrational stereotypes can overcome those shackles and become successful and how, in the 80's when so much was attributed to what you own, how much you make, etc., this is utterly baffling to a working-class stiff. In this case, I don't think there's anything negative at all about this particular aspect of the song. Knopfler is simultaneously denouncing the materialistic attitude of the 80's and making some pretty succinct social commentary about how minority groups are pigeonholed by the average joe. All via a pretty awesome song. Brilliant.
> 
> There's no way this song should censored. There are way too many songs that denigrate minority groups for absolutely no reason other than to be controversial that are much better targets for this sort of investigation. No one's wandering around the Louvre and painting black lines over the nudes in Renoir's works.


One of the difficulties with song lyrics is that they don't come with quotation marks.

I've mentioned it here before, but in 1982 or so, I was at the center of a controversy at the University of Alberta. I, too, was attempting to use inflammatory language to capture what I felt was someone _else's_ unsupportable point of view. The op-ed piece in the university radio guide was about what I felt were racist attitudes on FM radio, and the piece used a certain word that is planned to be removed from high school editions of Huckleberry Finn. Unfortunately, what showed up in print omitted the quotation marks, and what was supposed to be something coming from the mouth of a callous radio programmer ended up looking like it came from me. People were right to be upset abut what they saw, even though it was intended to defend them, and not offend them. Though he wagged a finger at me for my bad judgment call, my champion during the very uncomfortable weeks that followed was Teddy Pemberton, father of Rollie Pemberton, better known as Edmonton's poet laureate Cadence Weapon.

Knopfler IS/was trying to do exactly what you describe. But the folks who are supposed to apply the broadcast standards don't have the latitude to say "Well, the underlying connotation is that the fellow using the term is a bad example". They have guidelines about what is permissible and they apply them. It is in the nature of morality-based policies and regulations that they don't handle social context very well.

Back when the show used to be on, I would sometimes watch The Man Show, with Jimmy Kimmel and Adam Carolla. When my then-teenage son would sit down and watch some of it with me, I would regularly turn and remind him "You do realize this is the *opposite* of what you should do, right?". Unfortunately, you can't assume that everything put on the airwaves for children has a parent on duty to either explain the subtext or counsel regarding the wisdom, or appropriateness, of emulating it.


----------



## Accept2

I hate the fact that we dont have free speech but tell countries around the world like China that we do allow it. The problem with censorship is they keep moving on and moving up. They get an inch here or there, and before you know it, you cant say Christmas or it might offend someone. Larry Flynt used to take out ads in newspapers with the heading "Censorship works" and the add would contain a picture of Hitler, Stalin or some other asshole who stifled free speech. We shouldnt care if someone gets offended, you dont have the right not to be not offended. Well maybe soon you will, and we will wake up in Demolition Man or something much worse.............


----------



## JHarasym

IMHO both examples offer an opportunity to discuss the issues they raise. Squelching or sanitizing art defeats its purpose.


----------



## hollowbody

mhammer said:


> One of the difficulties with song lyrics is that they don't come with quotation marks.
> 
> I've mentioned it here before, but in 1982 or so, I was at the center of a controversy at the University of Alberta. I, too, was attempting to use inflammatory language to capture what I felt was someone _else's_ unsupportable point of view. The op-ed piece in the university radio guide was about what I felt were racist attitudes on FM radio, and the piece used a certain word that is planned to be removed from high school editions of Huckleberry Finn. Unfortunately, what showed up in print omitted the quotation marks, and what was supposed to be something coming from the mouth of a callous radio programmer ended up looking like it came from me. People were right to be upset abut what they saw, even though it was intended to defend them, and not offend them. Though he wagged a finger at me for my bad judgment call, my champion during the very uncomfortable weeks that followed was Teddy Pemberton, father of Rollie Pemberton, better known as Edmonton's poet laureate Cadence Weapon.
> 
> Knopfler IS/was trying to do exactly what you describe. But the folks who are supposed to apply the broadcast standards don't have the latitude to say "Well, the underlying connotation is that the fellow using the term is a bad example". They have guidelines about what is permissible and they apply them. It is in the nature of morality-based policies and regulations that they don't handle social context very well.
> 
> Back when the show used to be on, I would sometimes watch The Man Show, with Jimmy Kimmel and Adam Carolla. When my then-teenage son would sit down and watch some of it with me, I would regularly turn and remind him "You do realize this is the *opposite* of what you should do, right?". Unfortunately, you can't assume that everything put on the airwaves for children has a parent on duty to either explain the subtext or counsel regarding the wisdom, or appropriateness, of emulating it.


Mark, of course you're right. As a government regulatory body, it doesn't make sense to tread in grey areas. Clear-cut right/wrong distinctions are much easier to deal with. Anytime context becomes part of the equation, it's a variable that can mean (or be shown to mean) many things. Regardless, I'm still annoyed by it. As much as I'm annoyed by the judgement call on Twain's works, or any other kind of unilateral decision to "right" an artist's wrongs.

What really grinds my gears is that if you go to the CBSC website regarding the decision concerning Money for Nothing, there actually a lot of documentation there. Some people have done some serious work looking into this song and whether or not it's offensive. There's also an ENTIRE segment called "Contextual Considerations," wherein they find that the artistic merit of the song isn't strong enough to condone the usage of the questionable word. The CAB Equitable Portrayal Code, Clause 10a states "Legitimate artistic usage: Individuals who are themselves bigoted or intolerant may be part of a fictional or non-fictional program, provided that the program is not itself abusive or unduly discriminatory." This can be used to justify usage of discriminatory language, imagery, etc. but in this case, how does this NOT apply? While the contextual analysis of Knopfler's lyrics may be subject to debate, I don't think anyone can misinterpret this song as auto-biographical. Clearly it's a piece of fiction with a bigoted character in it, so how is this not enough to sway the decision the other way?


----------



## mhammer

And your concerns and bewilderment are legitimate too. As much as I've risen to the defense, trust me, I'm muttering "But, but ,but....." just like you.

Accept2 writes: "_I hate the fact that we dont have free speech but tell countries around the world like China that we do allow it_." There is world of difference between slaughtering hundreds of people, then jailing all those who say it happened so that word doesn't get around, and asking people to simply be polite and considerate in their public language. Grouping things together that are only VERY distantly thematically connected commits the same error as grouping Knopfler's use of a derogatory term with Larry Flynt's Hustler cover of naked women being dropped into a meat grinder (which, following the Picton trial, offends and nauseates even more than it did when it came out). And if a cute little music video needs to have a 200-millisecond edit to be played on public airwaves (thought it would not be required for other formats), does that compare to someone being jailed in order to prevent them with accepting a Nobel prize?

Yes, we have our little gaffs, and things we recognize as going against our better instincts, but I think our moral authority is generally intact. I like you, buddy, but my finger is wagging right now.


----------



## Accept2

You guys can justify the stifling of free speech all you want but I see the human society being transformed into a bunch of whiners with a sense of total entitlement. This is just another step in the wrong direction. Our technology moves ahead, why cant we?.........


----------



## smorgdonkey

I see this in the manner that the word never had any real statement about sexuality in the context that it was used in the song. I feel that it was just that generic term for 'pretty boy' that got used SO OFTEN back then and that is what got 'quoted' so to speak in the song.

25 years and the first complaint about it. I was listening to the guy who was on the side of 'this is offensive' on CBC radio today and I recall after one of his comments, the desire to call up and say "don't be so gay". Of course I wasn't thinking that I wanted him to actually be 'less gay' - that is his orientation and the way that he was born. However, using 'gay' in line with the more common modern vernacular, I was thinking "don't be so easily offended, cupcake". By 'cupcake' I wasn't suggesting that he was a small sized baked goods item either.

See? Everything that you say may require explanation to the finest detail.

My point being that people shouldn't be so freaking sensitive about everything - to me it exudes weakness. In the same breath I don't think that American politicians should be saying 'if words don't work then maybe bullets will' or anything similar. Alas that is political and not even within the borders of the country from which the actual topic originates but I think it has value in clearing the picture(?).


----------



## mhammer

Accept2 said:


> You guys can justify the stifling of free speech all you want but I see the human society being transformed into a bunch of whiners with a sense of total entitlement. This is just another step in the wrong direction. Our technology moves ahead, why cant we?.........


I've honestly never felt any restrictions on what I had to say stemming from the requirement to be civil. True, being civil may have required a little more effort on my part, but I've always been able to say what I felt needed saying. I often find that some of the loudest voices complaining about "freedom of speech" have not really thought much about what needed to be said, merely that THEY wanted to say it. That's not a slight at anybody here, but merely my sense of what I regularly read and hear in the press and on forums. Being considerate is not THAT hard once one gets some practice.


----------



## shoretyus

Just wondering just when Cbc last played that song anyway? I bet it hasn't been for a long time.


----------



## Morkolo

I've read many opinions on it, and heard many from my friends and no one seems offended by it. The only crowd that seems to be are the whiners that cry over everything... but that's just me. I believe in freedom of speech as well as being considerate of others feelings but there's a point where you have to draw the line and realize that some people say some stuff without meaning any harm. I'd be foolish to get upset every time someone called me a newfy, but that's just my opinion. As for the gay slur thing I can understand that to a degree, if it was put out today I could understand completely. But it was from a different time and was said in a different context in comparison to how it would be used today.


I believe in censorship to a degree but I believe they're going after the wrong stuff. Mark my words the day is coming where the soft core porn music videos by lady gaga and the rest of the bunch won't bat an eyelash and red green will be 18a.


----------



## Accept2

mhammer said:


> I've honestly never felt any restrictions on what I had to say stemming from the requirement to be civil. True, being civil may have required a little more effort on my part, but I've always been able to say what I felt needed saying. I often find that some of the loudest voices complaining about "freedom of speech" have not really thought much about what needed to be said, merely that THEY wanted to say it. That's not a slight at anybody here, but merely my sense of what I regularly read and hear in the press and on forums. Being considerate is not THAT hard once one gets some practice.


The Canadian government has stifled freedom of speech in the research field for a very long time. Maybe some people dont see the impacts because they work in fields that freedoms of speech are not really in the limelight, but in others, it stifles all progress in the name of not offending, and PC compliance. Research needs to be free of bias, and manipulation in the name of social engineering. Even in the US, intelligent design is replacing evolution in the name of not offending people. Maybe we can ask some of the Anglo-phones in Quebec how they feel about the language police. You really need to consider that these things affect people across the country in different ways, and its a big ass country.............


----------



## puckhead

Huckleberry Finn, Money for Nothin'... 
hmmmm, someone should really look into that Louie Louie thing - something's definitely fishy there.

complete horseshit. It's been fine for 25 years, and now some jackass is offended?


----------



## keeperofthegood

[sarc]




puckhead said:


> Huckleberry Finn, Money for Nothin'...
> hmmmm, someone should really look into that Louie Louie thing - something's definitely fishy there.
> 
> complete horseshit. It's been fine for 25 years, and now some jackass is offended?



SIR! Your comment offends me. Of all the uncouth things to post. I am egregiously made aware of my rising anger even seeing it repost as a quote! SIR you MUST edit that posting and PLEASE replace the offensive item as demonstrated properly here:



puckhead said:


> Huckleberry Finn, Money for Nothin'...
> hmmmm, someone should really look into that Louie Louie thing - something's definitely ***** there.
> 
> complete horseshit. It's been fine for 25 years, and now some jackass is offended?


Referances to women's genitalia has no place on a family forum :|




[/SARC]


----------



## Accept2

The Canadian legal standard on freedom of speech is that it can be denied to those who use it to incite hatred. That is the standard which was used on Zundel. If you truely support the governments decision, and agree fully that they were in their right to squash Dire Straits from inciting hatred, then you should demand the government brings these guys into court and charge them. If they dont, then this whole banning is bullshit and the government has once again misinterpreted their power under the law............


----------



## Jim DaddyO

Next up.......A politically correct censorship group is trying to close hospital maternity units down because they are delivering....gasp!....NAKED babies!!!!!


----------



## hollowbody

Not that I like to EVER quote Fox News, but K97 in Edmonton is going to play the unedited version for an hour straight in protest, repercussions be damned! Good on them! I wish some of the larger stations in the major cities would grow a set and do the same, but Corus entertainment has already said that they will uphold the ban. 

Some Corus stations are dropping the song entirely, rather than play an edited version. It's a shame that this classic song might disappear from airplay as a result of this, but I applaud that decision as well. It's the peaceful revolution way of showing their displeasure.


----------



## Accept2

They all should play it, it would force the issue out of kangaroo court into the real courts, and common sense would prevail............


----------



## mhammer

Accept2 said:


> The Canadian government has stifled freedom of speech in the research field for a very long time. Maybe some people dont see the impacts because they work in fields that freedoms of speech are not really in the limelight, but in others, it stifles all progress in the name of not offending, and PC compliance. Research needs to be free of bias, and manipulation in the name of social engineering. Even in the US, intelligent design is replacing evolution in the name of not offending people. Maybe we can ask some of the Anglo-phones in Quebec how they feel about the language police. You really need to consider that these things affect people across the country in different ways, and its a big ass country.............


1) There ARE standoffs between government researchers affiliated with science-based departments, and the political staffers that work for the minister. The scientists are entirely comfortably with anomalies and diversity of outcomes - its part of our training - but staffers and communications people think in terms of consistency and "staying on message". Those two communities don't get along well, and to my mind the wrong side wins that struggle too often. But that being said, there is no stifling of the research itself, only in its public release under the banner of government. No university researcher would describe themselves as being stifled, other than by reviewers and journal editors with their own biases. Besides, who the hell do you think funds all that research that irks the people who wish everything would line up with their policies?

2) Research is NEVER *EVER* free of an orientation, even when it thinks it is. And the influence that money sources have can often be less that what the researcher themself imposes. A good friend of mine recently retired as president of a large Canadian university. A big part of his job was to line up money for the school from benefactors as well as the government. You'd be pleasantly surprised at the manner in which universities can play hardball with donors, and get them to not micromanage what happens with their money.

3) Policy development is hard. Not many folks are skilled at it - simply having your heart in the right place is not enough - and not many areas lend themselves to solid policy development. So yeah, language policy in Quebec can be a real head scratcher, and the folks tasked with implementing it are not always the sharpest tools in the shed. What can I say? The folks who are hall monitors today are no brighter or flexible in their thinking than the folks who were hall monitors in 1957. A good friend who I was in several bands with became the president of a large Anglophone rights group in Quebec after he had been in law practice for a number of years. He eventually quit them because they didn't know what the hell they were doing and had devolved into a bunch of whiners.


----------



## Ship of fools

Leave ths song alone and we need to watch that the line is not moved to the point of no return when it comes to being politically correct. Its is after all a word and its meaning can go either direction and if you stifel all words then you start a slope that can never be stopped.
Yes we need to help protect the way of life for others, but we can't do it by opposing other points of view and I am not sure I want someone dictating to me what is incited hatred towards any group, we all as human beings know right from wrong but I for one don't want some watchdog telling me that I can or can't say something that may offer a different point of view. I can understand if it were to tell someone to hurt or to insult a person or persons, but at the end of the day it is just a song and then what happens when we roll a *** { F.A.G. } ( was used as roll a cigarette at one time ), yes words can hurt, but lets not draw it over the line and use it to stifel freedoms that we all should enjoy.
I don't claim to know right or wrong, I am not qualified to make jusgements agianst whom ever or whatever, but I do know when something is just to far out there and in my humble opinion this is really streching the bounds of right and wrong and this is just wrong.Ship


----------



## Mooh

So often I feel like a societal bystander, slack-jawed, shuffling about with my hands in my pockets, wondering why anyone cares about a word or a thing which has brought less harm than lousy construction codes, inadequate health care, stupid gun laws, various miscarriages of justice, education underfunding, water quality, and a host of other issues relevant to the world outside my cd player. 

There are just as "offensive" things said and done every moment on TV... 

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Robert1950

Frank Zappa is turning in his grave right now.


----------



## mhammer

Personally, I think they ought to edit the vocal, and dub in Stewie Griffin saying "Hoh-moh-seck-sssewal". That oughta liven the track up.


On a more serious note, you have to wonder what the threshold for action oughta be in the era of instant and higher-volume correspondance. Everything has an e-mail address and/or a 1-800 number for complaints and feedback. The good news is: more citizen feedback. The bad news is: more citizen feedback. If it's not the CRTC, it's an MP's office or CFIA, or the local school board, or the Better Business Bureau, or Toyota recalls.

What should the threshold be for translating consumer/citizen feedback into action? In the case of the CRTC, it would appear that one citizen complaint requires them to investigate and potentially take action. In the case of drop-side baby cribs, there was a small handful of cases. During the census long-form debacle last summer, the government and minister exaggerated the number of citizen complaints, presumably because a double-digit number would be considered less justification than a 4-digit number.

So is there any simple rule of thumb that points the way to how many citizen objections should be required to take action on something? Should the threshold vary with the complexity or type of action? If a 5000-name petition from an association of mothers-in-law objected to that Kraft Cheese mix ad with the effigy/pinata, should that compel removal of the ad? Would 2000 be enough? One thousand, 100, 10? And how do we establish some degree of consistency and comparability across regulatory regimens? Do you want to leave it up to the regulators to go with their gut and say "Nah, the guy's a loony. Ignore him." Or do you want them to treat every complaint equivalently, even if they think you're a loony or a tightass or from some fringe group? Maybe YOU can make fun of somebody who sends in a complaint, but should the regulatory body, or is it their obligation to pass no judgment and just apply the rules, whether they think it makes sense or not?

Like I keep saying, there isn't a helluva lot of difference between the folks who are tasked with this stuff and high school hall monitors, or the folks who ticket you in downtown Toronto.

Should there be, and what do you think it should look like?


----------



## Robert1950

This reminds me about the shootings in Arizona - a political comic. "He may have got a gun, but we stopped him from getting a Kinder Surprise". Man, there are some really vulgar, women degrading rap songs with violent overtones that have been around for years and they nail Dire Straits for this?!?!?


----------



## Hamstrung

Here's an interesting article on the matter from Alan Cross' blog. It also has a link to the CBSC in case anyone feels strongly enough one way or the other to respond directly.

How a Classic Rock Song Ran Afoul of Canadian Broadcast Regulations (Update) | ExploreMusic


----------



## GuitarsCanada

Hamstrung said:


> Here's an interesting article on the matter from Alan Cross' blog. It also has a link to the CBSC in case anyone feels strongly enough one way or the other to respond directly.
> 
> How a Classic Rock Song Ran Afoul of Canadian Broadcast Regulations (Update) | ExploreMusic


One post to that article sites several songs that could fall into the same category. I guess when you open a can of worms like this it can lead to a very dark place. I cannot support a decision that would lead to such nonsense.


----------



## mhammer

Hamstrung said:


> Here's an interesting article on the matter from Alan Cross' blog. It also has a link to the CBSC in case anyone feels strongly enough one way or the other to respond directly.
> 
> How a Classic Rock Song Ran Afoul of Canadian Broadcast Regulations (Update) | ExploreMusic


Many many thanks for that link. A thoughtful and balanced piece. Equally helpful, Cross links to the original complaint and CBSC ruling.

What is dismayingly omitted from the process is a productive discussion with the complainant and "offender". I suppose it would be inappropriate for any government body to attempt to persuade a complainant to change their view. But still, the process ought to be able to include some sort of joint discussion in which the complainant and offender can reach a workable compromise. Not to heap all the blame on the complainant, the radio station's response (also linked to) was shallow and dismissive, consisting of essentially a listing of all the acclaim and awards the song had racked up over the years. The station's attitude was "How can sensitivities be an issue when the song sold so many copies?" Ergo they didn't need to change now, because they've had no reason to change prior to now.

I was unaware that there were alternate versions for airplay with the offending content dubbed over or otherwise altered. The complainant makes clear they would be entirely content with that, and actually offers up a thoughtful reply, but the station wasn't interested.

Actually, you'd be very pleasantly surprised at how thoughtful and informative the ruling is. They cover a LOT of ground and take a lot into consideration, citing many pertinent precedents. Fascinating reading, and a nice bit of insight into how such bodies operate. Recommended. CBSC Decision*| CHOZ-FM re the song &ldquo;Money for Nothing&rdquo; by Dire Straits

FWIW, one of the long-established newstands/smokeshops in the heart of Ottawa's "gay ghetto" is a place called Mags & ****. I also grew up on AM radio and tunes that were bleeped. Remember "Brainwashed" by David Clayton Thomas? I seem to recall another single by Joe Tex that had a bleep in it. We were fine with it as long as it didn't wreck the momentum of the song. I also remember feeling oh-so-subversive when I went to the local department store record counter and bought the single of "5D" by the Byrds, which had been banned from airplay because authorities felt it was about drugs.


----------



## hollowbody

GuitarsCanada said:


> One post to that article sites several songs that could fall into the same category. I guess when you open a can of worms like this it can lead to a very dark place. I cannot support a decision that would lead to such nonsense.


Indeed. I can think of at least half a dozen songs that are part of the rock n roll canon that can be banned for similar reasons, and there's probably dozens more that can be cited as well.

This is nothing new, of course. Chuck Berry was forced to change the lyric for Jonny B Goode from "Oh my how that little coloured boy could play" to "Oh my how that little country boy could play." This of course was in the 50's when things were quite a bit different. Since then, The Doors were asked to change the lyrics to Light my Fire for the Ed Sullivan show, but to their credit, did not. Bob Dylan was allowed to use n***** in a song, Bruce Springsteen called Vietnamese people "yellow" and countless other lyrics were allowed because the artistic merit justified the usage. Are we now going to have to sift through the entire back catalogue of music to deem which songs are appropriate and which are no longer?


----------



## Accept2

mhammer said:


> Should there be, and what do you think it should look like?


Things like this should never be about numbers. When the majority rules, its a recipe for disaster. When the minority rules its a recipe for disaster. Somewhere along the way our system has forgotten some basic principles that formed the laws of the land. In some ways the Doctrine of Stare Decisis is to blame, but in others its just plain lazyness. One reason I like Libertarian politicians over others is they always think about what their principles tell them on how to act with every issue, not knee jerk a reaction. This is a knee jerk. There already exists a legal framework for when someones freedom of speech can be stifled. I suggest this regulatory board learn it, because they have taken on a responsibility and have not used due care in wielding their power. Again, numbers are irrelevant, its down to the first principles of legal framework..........


----------



## Accept2

GuitarsCanada said:


> I guess when you open a can of worms like this it can lead to a very dark place.


This will definately follow. Once you give an inch they will push for miles..........


----------



## synop7

*Money for nothing*

Check this out:
Edmonton station joins Halifax station's &lsquo;Money for Nothing&rsquo; marathon - The Globe and Mail

CBSC has banned "Money for nothing". Someone complained bout the use of the term ****** and there ya go

I am not only angry but scared. This is not political correcness anymore, it is historical revisionism.

Read 1984 by Orwell. We are there.

Couple of wekk ago the National Post mentionnend that the term ****** would be removed fro Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer

Tell ya guys this scares me more than guns. No shit!


----------



## synop7

I too got censored:
The terms are: tapette and negre


----------



## GuitarsCanada

I have certain words that are censored here on the forum. In the context in which we are discussing them now, they would be acceptable. But we will leave them in the system as in the long run we are a guitar forum and the use of those words would never come up unless they were used to harm someone.


----------



## Big White Tele

A little silly but....thats human rights for ya.


----------



## mhammer

Accept2 said:


> Things like this should never be about numbers. When the majority rules, its a recipe for disaster. When the minority rules its a recipe for disaster. Somewhere along the way our system has forgotten some basic principles that formed the laws of the land. In some ways the Doctrine of Stare Decisis is to blame, but in others its just plain lazyness. One reason I like Libertarian politicians over others is they always think about what their principles tell them on how to act with every issue, not knee jerk a reaction. This is a knee jerk. There already exists a legal framework for when someones freedom of speech can be stifled. I suggest this regulatory board learn it, because they have taken on a responsibility and have not used due care in wielding their power. Again, numbers are irrelevant, its down to the first principles of legal framework..........


I spend my days going through thousands of complants from federal public servants about situations where they felt they were screwed out of a job, and I follow the research on perceived fairness. And if there were any way to summarize a big chunk of the complaints (and it isn't all of them), it would be ""These jokers are winging it, and making up the rules as they go along. I wanna know exactly what the rules are, up front, and I want everyone to play by them, so that I know where I stand."

So, on the one hand there is always a strong desire to have a formal framework, legal or otherwise. On the other hand, there's a little bit of Libertarian in everyone, and they hate it when someone's reply is "I'm just following the rules" and fails to apply "their principles" and take context or your personal circumstances into account. I can know what the rules are, but I can't always know what your "principles" are, or how you extrapolate them. I don't want knee jerk, but I don't want you making it up as you go along.

We changed the rules for federal hiring about 5 years ago because everybody was complaining about them being too rigid and being screwed out of a job because they scored one point lower than somebody or had one month's less seniority. Now, under a regime in which managers are allowed to use "their principles" to make contextualized judgments about who is really right for the job, we have all these people bitching about how vague and inconsistent it is, and how they wish applicants were ranked by points scored. It's like listening to Muscovites whining about how much better things were under Krushchev.

Neither extreme is good, as you yourself point out. But ultimately it doesn't seem possible to please people. They want what they want, and if they don't get it, then the way that outcome occurred must have had something wrong about it. I've learned to live with that quirk of human nature.

The listener in St. John's was sitting there with the radio on, and after listening to "Money", thought "Aw jeez, man, how many more years do I have to put up with this crap?". They sent it in, and the regulatory body followed the framework to the letter. End of story.


----------



## synop7

*Cool*

Well
I understand, kinda
As long as my point is being made


----------



## GuitarsCanada

Big White Tele said:


> A little silly but....thats human rights for ya.


Well if we were a different type of forum I could see it, but for the life of me I cant come up with any scenario where the n word or the f word would ever come into play discussing guitars or guitar gear. If you dont sensor them you will always get some wiseass that will throw them in there for whatever reason and then I just have to go and delete it when the first complaint comes in, which would be about 30 seconds after it was posted.


----------



## Big White Tele

GuitarsCanada said:


> Well if we were a different type of forum I could see it, but for the life of me I cant come up with any scenario where the n word or the f word would ever come into play discussing guitars or guitar gear. If you dont sensor them you will always get some wiseass that will throw them in there for whatever reason and then I just have to go and delete it when the first complaint comes in, which would be about 30 seconds after it was posted.


Oops, Im sorry, I was refering to the original post. I should have quoted it. I think that the ban on the word in the song is a little strong, but I do understand that human rights advocates find the use of it offensive. I wouldnt think it would be cool for a bunch of kids running around in school calling everyone that name. Sort of like bullying. I agree with the Guitar Canada point of view on the forum, for sure!!


----------



## GuitarsCanada

Big White Tele said:


> Oops, Im sorry, I was refering to the original post. I should have quoted it. I think that the ban on the word in the song is a little strong, but I do understand that human rights advocates find the use of it offensive. I wouldnt think it would be cool for a bunch of kids running around in school calling everyone that name. Sort of like bullying. I agree with the Guitar Canada point of view on the forum, for sure!!


Thanks for that. Personally, I would leave it wide open as I am an advocate of allowing people to say whats on their mind. I think we do that around here as well. I guess I like to think that we can all have it out on a subject without name calling. I know its possible. So we try to keep it clean as possible.


----------



## Accept2

Actually, according to that link, the person claimed the radio station was inciting hatred. The Board should have focused on that claim, as it doesnt hold up in any definition...........


----------



## synop7

*Really?*

I just meant that political correctness went too far with this bit
I understand that some radios stations played the song in Western Canada for an hour in a loop
Good
What's next?
Cover nudity on classical paintings?

You guys among all canadians, artists should be aware of Big Brother

Kids will always be mean in the schoolyard. I don't think they got that from Knopfler. Really.

I hate biggots as much as you do guys, but I tell ya this call is dangerous

As for Canada being the butt (can I say butt?) of the joke...


----------



## bw66

Its funny, since I first heard about this fiasco, I haven't been able to get that verse out of my head. I wonder if that's was the CRTC's intent? 



Robert1950 said:


> Frank Zappa is turning in his grave right now.


Is Frank Zappa dead? How'd I miss THAT?

Edit: Wow, he's been dead for a quite a while - maybe I just forgot.


----------



## mhammer

Nah, it's what they call a "lasting impact". If people can't even tell whether you're alive or dead, and it's not because they're disinterested, I'd say you've left a pretty decent legacy.

Either that, or you've gotta get out more. And get your damn prostate checked, or else you'll be jamming with Frank sooner than you'd like.


----------



## Ship of fools

Synop7 didn't they already try that one with covering Davids genitial with a cloth when it was displayed in Canada, well I have to agree with Accept2 that it does not met the criteria of the original complaint that the radio station is promoting a hatred against a group of persons of whatever nature. At the end of the day it is a song and nothing more and if we all allow this kind of non-sense then it will spill over to other songs or art forms and then we all loose the very thing we strive for in Canada our freedom to express ourselfs and many of folks look at it as nothing more then someone who has decided that it's wrong and he is going to save the world.Ship


----------



## smorgdonkey

One thing that I really should mention is this:

When I heard that the song was deemed "not fit for..." I was guessing that the 'offending lyric' was going to be "chicks for free". That's exactly how expectant I am of the over-sensitive society that 'we' have become. I was shocked that it was the use of '******'...I really was shocked. Now I am indifferent - the whole thing is just a shoulder shrugger.

I always wondered how The Rolling Stones' Brown Sugar made it on radio...'scarred old slaver... ...hear him whip the women just around midnight'. Not to mention the chorus.

...but say '******' three times and *IMMEDIATELY* (25 years later) you get shut down!


----------



## Kenmac

I saw this in today's Toronto edition of the Metro newpaper. )


----------



## Jimi D

Accept2 said:


> You guys can justify the stifling of free speech all you want but I see the human society being transformed into a bunch of whiners with a sense of total entitlement. This is just another step in the wrong direction. Our technology moves ahead, why cant we?.........


Why can't we? 'Cause the CBSC (and a lot of our uber-leftist, poli-corr, cry-baby support system institutions) are staffed, led and supported by a bunch of simpering ******s. That's why... 

What I will never comprehend is how people can spend time and energy defending this kind of stupidity. Between this and the editting of Twain's novel, I've been double whammied this week. Scary, scary, scary... It's a wonder anyone performs The Merchant of Venice in North America today...



synop7 said:


> I am not only angry but scared. This is not political correcness anymore, it is historical revisionism.
> 
> Read 1984 by Orwell. We are there.
> 
> Couple of wekk ago the National Post mentionnend that the term ****** would be removed fro Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer
> 
> Tell ya guys this scares me more than guns. No shit!


A perfectly sane reaction to this kind of revisionist censorship... It should frighten and anger us all... But nobody really has the gumption to care any more...


----------



## GuitarsCanada

Canadian Celebs weigh in on the issue



> Scott Thompson was still fuming Friday that the Dire Straits song Money for Nothing has been banned in Canada for containing the slur “******.”
> 
> “Shakespeare would be rolling over in his g-word,” said Thompson, the 51-year-old actor/comedian best known for his work with the Kids in the Hall troupe.
> 
> “When you ban a word, you make the word more powerful. All this banning that’s going on just makes (the hate) go deeper and deeper into the soul, where it festers. Let it it out. I want to know what you really think. I can handle it.
> 
> “It makes me feel like we’re five years old and need to go potty. The n-word, I guess, is number 1 and the f- word is number 2.”
> 
> Other prominent gay Canadian performers also weighed in.
> 
> Rick Mercer, host of CBC’s Rick Mercer Report, said “the song doesn’t offend me, because it’s all about context, and it’s a character line spoken by an ignorant person who is jealous of a glam rock and roll star.
> 
> “Issues like this crowd out real issues of intolerance. In Ontario, the Halton Catholic school board banned the formation of gay-straight alliances in high schools. The chair of the board compared them to Nazi groups. That’s something worth talking about. I’m more concerned with helping kids at risk than offending the sensibilities of older people who listen to classic rock stations at work.”
> 
> Trevor Boris, standup comedian and star of MuchMusic’s Video on Trial, said the offending word is “obviously bad ... so of course now in Edmonton, being the Texas of Canada, radio stations are planning on playing the song on repeat.”
> 
> Daniel MacIvor, iconic Canadian playwright, says Canadians, like Americans, are “starting to be infected with a fever that blocks irony ... and I think that’s the problem here.”
> 
> Rex Harrington, former longtime principal dancer at the National Ballet of Canada, said: “Although it’s not one of my favourite words, I ask whether we are helping or hindering younger generations by banning the song from the radio. Where do we draw the line on censorship?
> 
> “I believe that we need to let history stand and learn from it, to change our present and future ways of thinking, rather than rewriting history to suit our needs. I am sure that people have been offended by art throughout history, and where would we be today if it had been banned or changed?”
> 
> Brendan Healey, artistic director of Toronto’s iconic gay theatre, Buddies in Bad Times, said such censorship is overkill.
> 
> “There are many other examples in pop culture that exhibit all sorts of homophobia that are much worse,” Healey said.
> 
> Showbiz publicist Grant Ramsey has no problem with the use of the offending word, he says, but suggests that “anybody who uses it should be barred from using the phrase ‘the n-word.’”


----------



## allthumbs56

As a beer-bellied, blue-collared ignoramous I have always been offended by the way the song stereotypes me.


----------



## mhammer

Jian Ghomeshi actually had a nice piece on the kerfuffle on Friday's edition of Q that sort of put things in perspective. He noted that there has been a "radio" version of the song around for ages, with the lyrics cleaned up for airplay, and this is, in fact, the version on the Dire Straits Greatest Hits album. So there was, in fact, no additional "censorship" involved, merely the reversion from an existing uneditted version, to an existing editted version, the latter played for years and years, *in order to get airplay on mainstream radio*. He cited a long list of tunes that had been altered over the years.

You gotta admit, there was more than a smattering of "Hey, you're not the boss of me!!" in this, and in the reaction of a great many.


----------



## bolero

Mooh said:


> So often I feel like a societal bystander, slack-jawed, shuffling about with my hands in my pockets, wondering why anyone cares about a word or a thing which has brought less harm than lousy construction codes, inadequate health care, stupid gun laws, various miscarriages of justice, education underfunding, water quality, and a host of other issues relevant to the world outside my cd player.
> 
> There are just as "offensive" things said and done every moment on TV...
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


my thought exactly


----------



## Moosehead

This pisses me off.....some *** got annoyed at a radio song and the CRTC jumps to change something that as stated above did not really need changing as there already is a radio version (apparently not in Newfoundland). If I get annoyed by some gangster rap shit on the radio does anyone give a flying f*ck? Hells no!

While we are on the topic of censorship, does no one find it ironic that we are all bitching about censorship meanwhile this very forum we are communicating on finds it necessary to censor the same word as the CRTC. Dont get me wrong i like this forum and everything but a little potty mouth never hurt anything. (your feelings aside cause no one really gives a shit) 

C'mon GC, I think you quoted George Carlin at the beginning of this thread, that man could sit all the bleeding hearts in the world down and make them laugh about the very same shit they were crying about beforehand. I think everybody could lighten up a little, GC included(not you personally but the forum, we are mostly adults/adultecents in here afterall). 

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Milkman

Censors will always find the wrong meaning and convolute it to suit their own small minded views.

Every time I sang Pink Floyd's "In the Flesh" I felt a twinge of discomfort when I came to the line "That one looks Jewish, and that one's a COOON", however it's important to understand that Waters was trying to demonstrate how mindless racism and prejudice based on religion are, not trying to promote it.

If we can't talk about these things they're more likely to continue.


----------



## smorgdonkey

The debate on the big forum with predominantly American membership is ridiculous. About 90% of the people think the government banned the song and all of these whacked out opinions...Rick Mercer would have a field day. It is just embarrassing that people can be so uninformed. Not to say that I don't comment about topics that I am uninformed on but I am well known to preface my comments with "I don't know the whole story..." or "correct me if I am wrong..." etc. These sheep are just out there bleating away about stuff like they know everything.


----------



## hollowbody

mhammer said:


> Jian Ghomeshi actually had a nice piece on the kerfuffle on Friday's edition of Q that sort of put things in perspective. He noted that there has been a "radio" version of the song around for ages, with the lyrics cleaned up for airplay, and this is, in fact, the version on the Dire Straits Greatest Hits album. So there was, in fact, no additional "censorship" involved, merely the reversion from an existing uneditted version, to an existing editted version, the latter played for years and years, *in order to get airplay on mainstream radio*. He cited a long list of tunes that had been altered over the years.
> 
> You gotta admit, there was more than a smattering of "Hey, you're not the boss of me!!" in this, and in the reaction of a great many.


Yes, but my issue with it is that Classic Rock stations have been playing the unedited version for years because it is the original version faithful to what was on the Brothers album. They're not playing it because they like hearing about f*****s, but because that's how the song originally appears. It's like buying an abridged book. Sure, you can read Count of Monte Cristo unabridged if you want to save a few hundred pages, or you can read the original version as the author _intended_ it to be.

As a result of this ban, Classic Rock and Album-Oriented Rock stations no longer have the option of playing the original. It's just plain not allowed.


----------



## mhammer

Just two, I hope, parting comments.

First, I remind folks that the organization which handled the dispute is not affiliated with the government, but is the governance body of the private broadcasting industry. So technically, they represent the interests of radio stations, and not the government. They have some objecters within their community, but I'm not seeing any ground-swell of pressure from the broadcast community at this moment to have the ruling overturned. So take your anger out on the broadcast industry, not CBSC.

The other thing is that the case was launched on the basis of a single complaint, and that is the guideline the organization uses. I'm not declaring that as optimal or ideal, or alternatively the worst case scenario, merely what they elected to use. But, if people feel one complaint is not considered sufficient for the CBSC to follow up, how many ARE a sufficient number of complaints to justify examining a case and making a ruling? This is always a problem, and indeed was even a problem in the Old Testament (Bit by bit, Abraham bargains God down to save Sodom from destruction; if there are at least 10 righteous people in the city, God will back off.). If some number larger than one is chosen, should that number be on a per capita basis? Should it be a fixed number that completely ignores the geographic origins or representativeness? Should it be a number large enough to reflect a statistically reliable estimate of popular sentiment? Should it be qualified by the demographic properties of the complainants? ("Well, it's mostly women/Catholics/South Asians/Manitobans/pensioners, so I'm not so sure if we oughta do anything"). 

It's tricky. Obviously at some point when something bothers enough people it is only fair and just to fix it. But, short of a referendum, what is a "just" inflection point where the scales need to tip? The CBSC has essentially skirted around that by saying "Look, if there is even ONE complaint, we have to investigate." That may sidestep debate about the statistical validity of some designated number of complaints required for validity, but as I think we'd all agree, it puts too much power in the hands of crackpots, grumps, and people who simply looked at something from the wrong vantage point one day.

But it still begs the question: how many is enough?


----------



## Rugburn

A fellow worker mentioned the Jian Ghomeshi piece. Fair enough, but to me it misses the point. The choice to play whatever version is what's at stake. The callous editing of original art to suit the tenderfooted minority in our society is harmful. I don't care if it's Mark Twain, Looney Tunes, or The Little Rascals, it's reactionary and gutless. 

Shawn.


----------



## smorgdonkey

For those who may not visit the other forums...I posted this on the topic today as people seemed to be 'back and forth' on why this or that word should be considered the same or whether the way that it was used mattered. The topic inevitably brought up the use of the n-word in music and other media too. 

Anyway, I hope that some of you get a chuckle: 
*Furthermore, I would like to ban the singing of Take Me Out To The Ball Game in all public arenas, and from all air play because it says "buy me some peanuts and Cracker Jack".

Now, I don't care what context "cracker" is used because I view it as a racial slur toward white people (like me) and I find it very offensive. I'd also like the word "cracker" taken off of all printed materials (on the Cracker Jack box and YES, even soda cracker boxes) and replaced with the word "crisp".

Thanks.

Sincerely,

****** ****** *

Of course the ****** word is the other 'f' word.


----------



## zontar

smorgdonkey said:


> For those who may not visit the other forums...I posted this on the topic today as people seemed to be 'back and forth' on why this or that word should be considered the same or whether the way that it was used mattered. The topic inevitably brought up the use of the n-word in music and other media too.
> 
> Anyway, I hope that some of you get a chuckle:
> *Furthermore, I would like to ban the singing of Take Me Out To The Ball Game in all public arenas, and from all air play because it says "buy me some peanuts and Cracker Jack".
> 
> Now, I don't care what context "cracker" is used because I view it as a racial slur toward white people (like me) and I find it very offensive. I'd also like the word "cracker" taken off of all printed materials (on the Cracker Jack box and YES, even soda cracker boxes) and replaced with the word "crisp".
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> ****** ****** *
> 
> Of course the ****** word is the other 'f' word.


If you can say that with a straight face--maybe it will happen...

But nice commentary...


----------



## Starbuck

Moosehead said:


> While we are on the topic of censorship, does no one find it ironic that we are all bitching about censorship meanwhile this very forum we are communicating on finds it necessary to censor the same word as the CRTC. Dont get me wrong i like this forum and everything but a little potty mouth never hurt anything. (your feelings aside cause no one really gives a shit)
> 
> C'mon GC, I think you quoted George Carlin at the beginning of this thread, that man could sit all the bleeding hearts in the world down and make them laugh about the very same shit they were crying about beforehand. I think everybody could lighten up a little, GC included(not you personally but the forum, we are mostly adults/adultecents in here afterall).
> 
> Just my 2 cents.


It's not about censorship. it's about decorum in a public place. For, virtualness notwithstanding, this is a public place. I don't like when I'm out and about and hear kids with the F%$ks flying. (and belive me, I am NOT afraid to use the word liberally when I know my audience) THAT my friend is what separates us from other forums. We treat each other with respect.


----------



## mhammer

I concur. Thank you.


----------



## John Watt

Yes, I agree with all the agreeable comments, but no-one mentioned this.
How come Jim Morrison gets his image buffed with a legal repeal of his 60's Florida charges,
but Canada's coming down heavy?


----------



## GuitarsCanada

Starbuck said:


> It's not about censorship. it's about decorum in a public place. For, virtualness notwithstanding, this is a public place. I don't like when I'm out and about and hear kids with the F%$ks flying. (and belive me, I am NOT afraid to use the word liberally when I know my audience) THAT my friend is what separates us from other forums. We treat each other with respect.


Well said. I have said this in a few threads over the years. I think I have about 8 words on the censor list for this forum. 3 of them are the same words just in short and long form. Over the years we have had to cut out a few subjects here. I hate doing that but it became clear that not everyone can express an opinion and then let everyone else express theirs. The infamous smoking thread got a few people banned and a few quit and never came back. There is just no conversation (based on our topics here) that the words on the censor list would ever be used. There would only ever be one reason to type those words and that would be to intentionally insult or harm someone. So I am all for free speech and letting people say what is on their minds, but there is absolutely no reason that we cannot do that with respect and courtesy to all.


----------



## mhammer

Civility can sometimes take a little bit of extra work, like searching through your vocabulary for a better choice of word or a euphemism, but it doesn't take all THAT much extra effort.

I'm not offended by strong language, and can throw it around with the best of them. What I find dismaying (and this has nothing to do with the song incident) is that over-use and acceptance of strong language too often erodes people's ability to acquire more of their own language, and explore the vast lexical beauty that took hundreds of years to develop. It's like someone who stumbled onto chocolate early in life, decided that's all they were going to eat from now on, and that not a single thing in the rest of the world's gastronomy was worth tasting.


----------



## Rugburn

For me, the charm of watching old cartoons, reading old books, or listening to old music is that it's a snapshot of the times they hail from. I don't want a "culturally sensitive" revision of these materials. As far as the "for the sake of our children" argument I would say we've already lost plenty of our rights and freedoms with the misuse of these six little words. The *Nanny State *operates on the fears and mistrust the public has in it's own ability to make grown-up decisions. Don't allow the staff at radio station X to choose for itself which version of a song to play or when to play it, tell them which version they MUST play. Sadly, Orwell, Huxley, and Heinlein to name a few, saw this coming all to clearly. We don't have to look too far back in our own history to see examples of well-meaning arguments used to bury or smoooth-over off-putting truths. It's a slippery slope.....


----------



## GuitarsCanada

Rugburn said:


> For me, the charm of watching old cartoons, reading old books, or listening to old music is that it's a snapshot of the times they hail from. I don't want a "culturally sensitive" revision of these materials. As far as the "for the sake of our children" argument I would say we've already lost plenty of our rights and freedoms with the misuse of these six little words. The *Nanny State *operates on the fears and mistrust the public has in it's own ability to make grown-up decisions. Don't allow the staff at radio station X to choose for itself which version of a song to play or when to play it, tell them which version they MUST play. Sadly, Orwell, Huxley, and Heinlein to name a few, saw this coming all to clearly. We don't have to look too far back in our own history to see examples of well-meaning arguments used to bury or smoooth-over off-putting truths. It's a slippery slope.....


I agree. History is what it is. Good, bad, ugly... all of it. You can't or should not try to run and hide from it. All we can hope is that we learn from the mistakes and make it a better place for future generations. But to try and erase it or hide it is not the right thing to do.


----------



## shoretyus

Well .. let's break the rules.. ha ha 

CBC News - Arts - Dire Straits complaints hit Halifax station


----------



## Starbuck

shoretyus said:


> Well .. let's break the rules.. ha ha
> 
> CBC News - Arts - Dire Straits complaints hit Halifax station


I find the comments to that article very interesting in that invariably they are all against the censoring of the past. it makes me wonder just who could wield the kind of influence to even get such a suggestion to the table?


----------



## mhammer

Rugburn said:


> For me, the charm of watching old cartoons, reading old books, or listening to old music is that it's a snapshot of the times they hail from. I don't want a "culturally sensitive" revision of these materials. As far as the "for the sake of our children" argument I would say we've already lost plenty of our rights and freedoms with the misuse of these six little words. The *Nanny State *operates on the fears and mistrust the public has in it's own ability to make grown-up decisions. Don't allow the staff at radio station X to choose for itself which version of a song to play or when to play it, tell them which version they MUST play. Sadly, Orwell, Huxley, and Heinlein to name a few, saw this coming all to clearly. We don't have to look too far back in our own history to see examples of well-meaning arguments used to bury or smoooth-over off-putting truths. It's a slippery slope.....


Ah, but you presume that radio stations are somehow "forced" to censor. Let me ask you, have you heard the *entire* Dire Straits oeuvre played on radio, or have they selected what *they* feel you would _like_ to hear? Media outlets, our traditional sources of culture, which is in turn our primary source of what we believe the world to be and be about, do our choosing for us all the time. If it ain't FM radio programmers, then it's CNN, MuchMusic, CBC, Canwest or Sunmedia, or whomever, cutting up our food into little pieces on our plates so we don't choke, and singing "here comes the airplane, open wide".

People bitch about "the nanny state", but all too often they arrive at that term by being spoon fed content by the very media that treats them like infantile consumers who can be manipulated.

Ironically, current generations grow all the more insistent on immediate access to as much media as they can get to, and all of that media, with a desperate need to secure *your* attention, tries to be as selective as it can. It can only survive by funneling you in a manner that leads audiences to value only that which they offer. People *demand* the truncation of information and culture, and too often don't even realize it.

As a result, the "censorship" we complain or debate about represents but a tiny fraction of the constraints placed upon what we are able to learn or experience each day; constraints which we accept willingly and treat as normal.


----------



## allthumbs56

GuitarsCanada said:


> Well said. I have said this in a few threads over the years. I think I have about 8 words on the censor list for this forum. 3 of them are the same words just in short and long form. Over the years we have had to cut out a few subjects here. I hate doing that but it became clear that not everyone can express an opinion and then let everyone else express theirs. The infamous smoking thread got a few people banned and a few quit and never came back. There is just no conversation (based on our topics here) that the words on the censor list would ever be used. There would only ever be one reason to type those words and that would be to intentionally insult or harm someone. So I am all for free speech and letting people say what is on their minds, but there is absolutely no reason that we cannot do that with respect and courtesy to all.


Something I've never thought about before. Do we have an actual "Censors List" that can be referenced or it just a guideline in the Mods noggins?


----------

