[Refreshed]

The CBC just called. They said they're not the CBSC.

[Guy_Fawkes]

My bad I assumed they were an arm of the CBC.

[Refreshed]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

My bad I assumed they were an arm of the CBC.

The CBC is public, you're right. The CBSC is private, however. Stephen Harper already said he can't get involved because it's a private affair.

[Zipperfish]

SprCForr SprCForr:

Refreshed Refreshed:

You said I'm OK with a bureaucrat deciding what word I'm allowed to hear, which is a strawman I took exception to. Now you're changing it to "someone decided what word I can hear on the radio only." That's better.

Check the wider meaning of the word "bureaucrat." I could have used panel, or committee or group. How about apparatchik? Regardless, the idea I was conveying remains the same.

Refreshed Refreshed:

If you heard your toddler repeat a word like "nigger" or "cute" and found out they got it from the TV or radio while you were in the kitchen making lunch, I bet you'd be mad, wondering how stuff like that could slip through. If not you, I bet at least half the posters here on your side hypocritically would. I used to be against censorship on the radio or daytime TV too (as early as five years ago) but that all changed when I realized how easily and how readily children repeat words they overhear. They don't know proper context, and I doubt the average listener does these days either.

Again with the strawman? And again, I'll decide what I think is and isn't appropriate thanks and you can decide for yourself.

Refreshed Refreshed:

You said a bureaucrat, which would be government or its agent, has decided what words I'm allowed to hear, like the word was banned period, like it was Big Brother 1984 or something paranoid like that. That's different than private enterprise deciding what words are acceptable or not on the radio for voluntary member radio stations. Very different.

Again, check the wider meaning and yes, the word has been banned from that song. The CBSC has decreed that word to be removed from that song. If another complaint just as frivilous as this was made against your Eminem song, that too would be subject to the same action by the CBSC. Let me play your word smithing game: It isn't private enterprise making the decision. It's a council. Very different. And it's still some group deciding what words I can and can't hear within a 25 yr old song.

Refreshed Refreshed:

I never said the song was homophobic.

I didn't claim you did. You said:

Refreshed Refreshed:

...some people here don't feel gays deserve the same dignity and respect other demographics do.

My response:

I I:

Trying to stick a charge of homophobia to all this is astonishing.

You allude that protesting the decision is based on homophobia.

Refreshed Refreshed:

I'm going to say to you the same thing I said to Canadian_Mind a few posts back... go back and read my past posts in this thread and then come back and try telling me I'm taking the song out of context. What I did say was that basically the lop-sidedness in people's opinions on the severity of the word "faggot" compared to other bad words can only be explained by a sense of feeling (in some people, not all) that homosexuals don't deserve the same respect as other demographics. I've spoken to many people that admit it, and I've heard many nonsense reasons for it, so I'm not going to be convinced that such mindset doesn't exist. I don't know which people here it is, because I don't know anyone here, so I can't point fingers at individuals quite yet, if at all. It might not be you. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not one of them, so for sake of argument, don't take me as calling you a hypocrite.

Wow, that's quite the ramble. I'm calling you the hypocrite, and you are. You support the removal of the word 'faggot" from a song because it offends some within the GBLT community, but you listen to other songs by other artists with that same "slur"! So whatever that mish mash above has to do with censoring a word from a Dire Straits song, I don't know. Your lack of faith in people's ability to discern the meaning of "bad" words is illuninating. Your rush to judge people is as well. No wonder the nanny state is alive and well.

Refreshed Refreshed:

I'm comfortable with the idea of a private panel advising member private radio stations what words are acceptable or not, just like I am with television.

Advising? Hardly. They render decisions. They are expecting compliance. Not just that particular song, but [uh oh!], your Eminem song is now affected...

From the CBSC: "It is also expected that a similar violation will not recur; that is, the broadcaster will not air similar material in the future. It is up to the broadcaster to determine the appropriate means to ensure that the offending type of broadcast does not recur."

Note the inclusion of the words "similar material"...

Refreshed Refreshed:

SprCForr SprCForr:

I'm not comfortable with government or anybody else determining overall what words are acceptable for me or any other adult, nor am I comfortable with buearcrats or any other non-elected government agents doing anything other than administration.

If only adults listened to the radio, maybe I'd agree.

I don't know what the hell your game is, but ascribing comments to me that I didn't make isn't on. That sound you hear? That was the sound of you kicking the last of your credibility to the curb.

Well said. I believe this is what the kids today refer to in their vernacular as PWNED!

[Zipperfish]

Refreshed Refreshed:

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

My bad I assumed they were an arm of the CBC.

The CBC is public, you're right. The CBSC is private, however. Stephen Harper already said he can't get involved because it's a private affair.

Kind of private. The CBSC is a regulatory body, albeit a self-regulating one. If this were one radio station, or a few, it wouldn't bother me. But since this organization represents just about every radio station I have access to here in Vancouver, it becomes my concern.

I agree that I don't expect or want government intervention in this case. The remedy is for the member stations to respond to this--and I note that some already have. After all, this kind of Bowdlerism is threat to them. Radio stations are already having a tough time competing with media that didn't exist scant years ago. If private radio stations as perceived as playing only music that a bunch of hand-wringing schoolmarms approved, they are going to lose their youth demographic.

[gonavy47]

Funny, I thought a "faggot" was a ropes end.

[Dayseed]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Let's pretend I said "I don't like getting blowjobs by chicks with braces", would you immediately have assumed that I was dismissing all blowjobs?

Lemmy,

I don't agree with your stance on the proposed editing of Money for Nothing, but the above example made me giggle. I may have to use it in the future and this is my notice that I'm giving you full credit for when I do. Also, I don't particularly like downloading everything for my iPod as I can't hear the full audio quality on it, but fuck is it convenient and I'll make a sacrifice in quality for it.

To everyone else, I do side with Refreshed on this. The argument has been conflating editing a portion of a song for radio-play with outright banning of the song in its entirety.

Guy_Fawkes immediately switched the argument to judging "art" as a whole, which was a colourful misdirection from my original question to him.

We're ALWAYS going to have to deal with some sort of artistic censorship in this country. Sure, it's your right to create happy looking puppets sucking each others assholes out while singing Wiggles songs, but its not your right to necessarily broadcast it to kids.

Imagine what Canada would look like if there were zero censorship at all and no restrictions on freedom of expression. Censoring the word "faggot" from radio-play isn't the end of the world.

Afterall, I never got to hear Alanis Morissette sing "Are you thinking of me when you fuck her?" on the radio once, but it was on my tape copy. The world didn't end at all.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Dayseed Dayseed:

Lemmy Lemmy:

Let's pretend I said "I don't like getting blowjobs by chicks with braces", would you immediately have assumed that I was dismissing all blowjobs?

Lemmy,

I don't agree with your stance on the proposed editing of Money for Nothing, but the above example made me giggle. I may have to use it in the future and this is my notice that I'm giving you full credit for when I do. Also, I don't particularly like downloading everything for my iPod as I can't hear the full audio quality on it, but fuck is it convenient and I'll make a sacrifice in quality for it.

To everyone else, I do side with Refreshed on this. The argument has been conflating editing a portion of a song for radio-play with outright banning of the song in its entirety.

Guy_Fawkes immediately switched the argument to judging "art" as a whole, which was a colourful misdirection from my original question to him.

We're ALWAYS going to have to deal with some sort of artistic censorship in this country. Sure, it's your right to create happy looking puppets sucking each others assholes out while singing Wiggles songs, but its not your right to necessarily broadcast it to kids.

Imagine what Canada would look like if there were zero censorship at all and no restrictions on freedom of expression. Censoring the word "faggot" from radio-play isn't the end of the world.

Afterall, I never got to hear Alanis Morissette sing "Are you thinking of me when you fuck her?" on the radio once, but it was on my tape copy. The world didn't end at all.

I'd agree with you if it was a group of people that complained about the song. But one person whining about being offended AND having an "official" body uphold the complaint is a dangerous thing.
That would be like me complaining to the mods about some of your anti-religion posts and the mods telling you that you can no longer make posts involving any discussion of religion or religious faith. If a group of us complained about it, there might be something to it, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like being censored in here because of one person complaining about being offended. It's bullshit and I suspect you know it is too.
Shit, if things got banned or censored everytime a solitary person complained about it or was "offended" by it, there wouldn't be much in the way of TV, music or movies that we'd get to enjoy.
If I'm offended by the costumes/outfits in the Gay Pride parade in Toronto, does that mean that my complaint alone should be enough to uphold a censoring of what they wear?

[EyeBrock]

Refreshed Refreshed:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Refreshed, we need to get a "Plonker" medal just for you.

Translation: I can't debate Refreshed so I'm going to insult him.

Bring on the debate. We will see what transpires.

[EyeBrock]

Refreshed Refreshed:

Lemmy Lemmy:

You were trolling. It was my mistake to feed you.

So says the guy who prefers ad hominen attacks over actual discussion.

If disagreeing with you equals trolling, then guilty as charged!

Well, maybe you should have 'lurked' for a bit longer.

Lemmy is one of the most reasonable, articulate and decent posters on CKA. I seldom agree with him but I always read his posts and gain something from his POV.

You on the other hand.....

[Lemmy]

Dayseed Dayseed:

Lemmy, I don't agree with your stance on the proposed editing of Money for Nothing, but the above example made me giggle. I may have to use it in the future and this is my notice that I'm giving you full credit for when I do. Also, I don't particularly like downloading everything for my iPod as I can't hear the full audio quality on it, but fuck is it convenient and I'll make
a sacrifice in quality for it.

I don't know that I've actually given my stance on the "proposed editing of Money for Nothing" so here it is: don't edit it. If it's too offensive for the air-waves then don't play it at all, but don't edit it. If "faggot" is a taboo word not to heard on the airwaves, then fine, I can accept that. But butchering the song is wrong.

Dayseed Dayseed:

Imagine what Canada would look like if there were zero censorship at all and no restrictions on freedom of expression. Censoring the word "faggot" from radio-play isn't the end of the world.

I'm not suggesting that there be zero censorship. I can appreciate some forms of censorship. But in the case of this tune, Jack is already out of the box. It's been in regular rotation on every rock radio station in the world for 25 years. It's a little late to play prude with it now.

[EyeBrock]

I do agree with you on this one Lemmy. This is a very silly move by the CBSC and your point about it having been played for 25 years is valid. The horse bolted in 1985. Complaining about it now seems pointless.

[Zipperfish]

This is not an "all or nothing" argument. Dayseed wants to imagine a country with no censorship. Refreshed says that either it's all acceptable or none of it is. That's a false dichotomy. If you support the unexpurgated version of Money for Nothing, that doesn't mean you support kiddie porn on the Cartoon Network.

This case simply isn't justifiable. You had a bunch of politically correct hand-wringers who shared a congenital defect in that they lacked a sense of irony who decided--based on a single complaint in a country of 30-million people--to Bowdlerize this song for virtually every private radio broadcaster in Canada.

Mark Knopfler and Dire Straits are bona fide artists, admired by millions world-wide and recognized by the peers. They do not produce the musical equivalent of puppets sucking each others assholes. Knopfler's lyrics are normally thoughtful. He doesn't sing songs about offing cops or asshole sucking. He sings songs about regular Joes being in a band, about the bittersweet march of progress, about the loyalty of soldiers to each other in the scourge of war. You'd think that, given this, the CBSC would have considered the context within which the term "faggot" was being used, but alas, no. Had they considered it, they might have discovered what almost every else knew about the song--that the term was being used by a characters in the song who themsleves were being lampooned because of their vulgarity and intolerance.

Artists always challenge contemporary mores. what's the message to artists here? Unless you produce saccharine lyrics that will offend not one in 30 million people, don't expect your song to be played on the radio in Canada.

Apart from those who make victimhood a profession (groups such as Egale, for instance), response from gay community has been almost as universal and harsh in its condemnation as from others.

I suppose it's not the end of the world if I hear *bleep* instead of "faggot" the next time ROCK 101 plays this song, but what irks me is this triumph of small, humourless minds over some of the damn finest music the 80s--perhaps the lowest cultural point ever on the planet--managed to produce.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Ok, I'm confused here. If the CBSC isn't a gov't organ and they don't issue broadcasting licenses, then just how the fuck do they get to make these kinds of decisions? And where does their power come from?

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Ok, I'm confused here. If the CBSC isn't a gov't organ and they don't issue broadcasting licenses, then just how the fuck do they get to make these kinds of decisions? And where does their power come from?

Generally, these types of self-regulating bodies are set up to avoid regulation by government. Just about every private radio station in Canada belongs to the CBSC. Although I'm thinking that may well change now.