[EyeBrock]

Zipperfish 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.

Nicely said Zip.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish 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.

So legally, there's nothing preventing the radio stations from thumbing their noses at the CBSC and playing the song uncensored?

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

So legally, there's nothing preventing the radio stations from thumbing their noses at the CBSC and playing the song uncensored?

No station is forced to be a member of the CBSC. A station which thumbed their nose at a CBSC ruling would probably be fined and or kicked out of the organization. If enough radio stations left the organizations, the CRTC (which is government) may identify a regulatory gap and move in, and broadcasters would prefer self-regulation over government regulation. As they represent nearly every private broadcaster in the country, they are a de facto censor.

Of course the radio stations also have to consider that viewers today have many more choices--satellite radio, internet radio, iTunes, yadda yadda yadda--so I wouldn't be surprised if they balked at this one. A couple of stations already have.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

So legally, there's nothing preventing the radio stations from thumbing their noses at the CBSC and playing the song uncensored?

No station is forced to be a member of the CBSC. A station which thumbed their nose at a CBSC ruling would probably be fined and or kicked out of the organization. If enough radio stations left the organizations, the CRTC (which is government) may identify a regulatory gap and move in, and broadcasters would prefer self-regulation over government regulation. As they represent nearly every private broadcaster in the country, they are a de facto censor.

Of course the radio stations also have to consider that viewers today have many more choices--satellite radio, internet radio, iTunes, yadda yadda yadda--so I wouldn't be surprised if they balked at this one. A couple of stations already have.

Ok thanks Zip. I went to look em up but just didn't feel like reading a bunch of legalese to find out

[Canadian_Mind]

Zipperfish 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.

lol. Bet the guy that complained wasn't born until after the song was released.

[Dayseed]

Zipperfish 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.

I never said it was an all-or-nothing proposition. My original post merely stated that it was understandable to bleep an offensive slur from a song. However, since I've been met with nothing but extreme answers, I pointed out the other extreme.

Quite frankly, I personally don't care if they censor the song or not. However, I understand that "faggot" is rather rude to gay people and in the context of the song, it's not endearing at all.

$1:

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.

Except on satellite radio, download sites, music stores and everybody's old collection. You're not being barred from the song, the offensive bit to some simply isn't broadcast on the radio.

$1:

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.

Are we talking about the same song? The character singing the song is expressing disdain for "faggot with the earring" who make a pile of money singing on MTV while he labouriously toils. Where's the context that makes that okay? What about "bangin' on the bongos like a chimpanzee?" in reference to Hawaiian music?

The point of the song is that disdain.

$1:

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.

Oh look, now whose got the "all-or-nothing" proposition? Goddamn hypocrite. The song is allowed to be played on the radio, just with a small edit, the same as TONS of other songs out there. The message is: You can't play anything you want on terrestrial radio; expect some edits when kids could be listening. Radio stations, at night or other times when it's conceivable kids won't be listening can play what the want. CHUM FM used to have a Sunday night comedy show that routinely played vulgar material.

I'm sure the Black Eyed Peas just gave up on releasing music in Canada when "beats so big I'm steppin' on leprechauns shittin' on all y'all with the boom boom" was edited.

Oh wait, no they didn't.

Try and think your arguments through, would you?

$1:

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.

You may want to re-read that above sentence. It doesn't make sense.

$1:

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.

Really? Are we necessarily enriched by hearing "faggot" on the radio, despite it being in a popular song?

[Lemmy]

Dayseed Dayseed:

Really? Are we necessarily enriched by hearing "faggot" on the radio, despite it being in a popular song?

I can only speak for myself, but I am enriched by hearing the artistry of a virtuoso. You might just as well ask if we are enriched by viewing Rubens' nudes or Michelangelo's sculptures.

[xerxes]

But what's the important part of the song? Is it this one word in contention? Or is it the brilliant guitar work of Mark Knopfler?

I'm going with the latter though I still say that this ban is BS and that the CBSC can go hang.

[Public_Domain]

PROTIP: Stop listening to the radio stations. Find your own melodies, they have the best swearwords in them.

[Lemmy]

The same could be said of Paul Rubens' nudes. Are the tits the important part of the painting? I say it's for the artists to decide how to create their art.

[Zipperfish]

$1:

Except on satellite radio, download sites, music stores and everybody's old collection. You're not being barred from the song, the offensive bit to some simply isn't broadcast on the radio.

Offensive to a tiny minority. That's the crux of the issue for me. One person complained in 30 million. One. Heck, they're having a hard time even finding anyone in the gay community who takes offence--again, excepting the perpetually aggrieved groups like Egale.

$1:

Oh look, now whose got the "all-or-nothing" proposition? Goddamn hypocrite. Blah blah blah...

Are you even capable of having a discussion without getting your panties in a knot? (oh--please don't report that one to the CBSC; they may interpret as slight against the LGBT community).

$1:

Really? Are we necessarily enriched by hearing "faggot" on the radio, despite it being in a popular song?

I was enriched by hearing the song.

[romanP]

Look at it this way: how many times have you heard this song on the radio, or anywhere, that it can essentially play back in your head without the need for electronic reproduction? Then answer this - how much music is there in existence, just waiting to be discovered, that will never be played on the radio because it is not licensed for radio play? I think the latter is a worse form of censorship.

[Refreshed]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

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.

Why bleep it out? There's already a version released by Dire Straights on Sultans of Swing that doesn't have it. (I just downloaded it and listened to it twice. It's a good song.)

[Refreshed]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I was enriched by hearing the song.

Stop whining and listen to it then.

[Refreshed]

To anyone who thinks the gay community almost universally condemns this decision, think again.

One gay I asked said:

$1:

Any radio station that can't understand why we wouldn't want that word played on the air is crazy. Justify it by saying you've played it for decades?

Society had done lots of things for decades, that doesn't mean it was right. Slavery went on for decades. Whites called minority races by a few choice words for decades, that was wrong.

I just might have to call this radio station myself.

Another...

$1:

I for one, refuse to permit anyone in my presence to use this type of speech. I find it most offensive!

And this one's short but sweet...

$1:

I HATE that word so much.