[RTD]

What a joke. After 26 years of airplay, NOW they decide that the lyrics are "too offensive". What a waste of taxpayers money this organization is. :hell:

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/2011/01/12/16865071.html



OTTAWA - It may be classic rock but the song Money for Nothing by Dire Straits will either have to be edited or not played in its original form after a decision by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.

After a complaint from a listener to OZ-FM in Newfoundland who heard the song at 9:15 at night, the CBSC ruled that Money for Nothing, a radio staple since 1985, violates the code of ethics on several fronts due to the use of the word "faggot."

The songs second verse contains the offensive word three times.

"The little faggot with the earring and the makeup"

"Yeah, buddy, that’s his own hair"

"That little faggot’s got his own jet airplane"

"That little faggot, he’s a millionaire"

The decision here in Canada comes as Americans are embroiled in a debate over censoring the literary classic Huckleberry Finn.

[someone123]

Normally radio stations play a modified version of the song (with "mother" instead of "faggot" -- doesn't really make sense but whatever).

We could toss out the CBSC profanity rules but if they can't say "fuck" on the radio then it's hard to see why "faggot" should be allowed. Certainly part of why this story is getting attention is that some angry white heterosexual (in some places Christian etc.) males (the talk radio crowd) will go to great lengths to claim that they are being persecuted (we were thrown to the lions and now I can't listen to the original Money for Nothing on the radio! I feel like a destitute 13 year old pregnant black girl in Mississippi!). It's hard for me to get upset about this.

The Mark Twain "issue" isn't censorship in any meaningful sense since the original can still be distributed. Similarly, if you want to listen to the original Dire Straits song at home you can.

[BretttheRiderFan]

I wasn't even aware that song contained those words until I heard about this story

The pussification of society takes another step.

[Bdog]

What a joke. After 26 years of airplay, NOW they decide that the lyrics are "too offensive". What a waste of taxpayers money this organization is. :hell:


Is it even a government funded organization? I always thought they were independent...

[RTD]

Is it even a government funded organization? I always thought they were independent...

I was under the impression that this was a tax-funded organization, however I could be wrong. Regardless, I don't agree with the decision.

[MonkeyRonin]

If they can't air fuck on the radio then its only fair that they can't air faggot either. Ideally, both would be allowed, but whatever, its not as if the song is now illegal to listen to in Canada.

[Reesonov]

This one really is what they call a "hard case". I do agree with it though. Oddly enough, I totally disagree with the decision in the United States to replace Huckleberry Finn with new copies wherein the word "nigger" is omitted (or replaced with some other word?). Its difficult to articulate what the difference is between the two cases. To me, the use of the word "faggot" in "Money for Nothing" is casual and careless, whereas in Huckleberry Finn, "nigger" is intimately tied to the themes and character of the novel. I can understand how people are uncomfortable about having the government making those kinds of decisions (and of course some people will always disagree with them no matter which decision they make), but someone has to do it, no?

[MrOilers]

To me, the use of the word "faggot" in "Money for Nothing" is just used casually and carelessly

Not really - the offending lyric, in context of the song, is being spoken by a guy who sees the flamboyant entertainer on TV and is calling him names because he is jealous that the guy he is using the slanderous language against (i.e. "the little faggot") is a millionaire with an easy job. Meanwhile, this intolerant guy is busting his ass doing some donkey work at some grunt job, moving appliances.

The narrator in the song is also jealous that the musicians get the "chicks" for free. But we don't hear any whining for censorship because the song is insensitive to women and treats them all like groupies.

And nobody likes the word "faggot". But it's stupid to ban broadcast of a song that uses the word to make fun of the intolerant losers who use it.



EDIT - I have to add that I am a little concerned that this decision was made after ONE SINGLE COMPLAINT by one person. Culture critics, media experts, music industry insiders, gay rights advocates, nobody of note in any of these sectors was consulted to the best of my knowledge (although I would be delighted to be corrected if need be.) This is such an absurd, outlandish, and irrational decision. I sincerely hope it opens wide the essential fallacies within the CRTC complaints structure.

The whole complaints structure seems to value individual complaints, without investigation into conflicts-of-interest or other mitigating elements above actual cultural relevance of the broadcasts.

[Reesonov]

^ Interesting. I admit that I'm not that familiar with the song (even though I'm old enough to remember when it was released). You've changed my mind to an extent. I'm no longer very confident that this was a good decision. Personally, I think that we need to be very careful about censoring legitimate cultural works.

Incidentally, after reading your quote, I've edited my original post to correct my grammar typo.

EDIT: Just to add two things:

(1) as I understand it, the song isn't banned per se, but rather "faggot" has been replaced in the "approved version" with some other word; and

(2) I would take issue with your assertion that nobody likes the word "faggot'. Sadly, that word still maintains a certain degree of acceptance in our society, at least in "blue collar" workplaces and schoolyards (at least in my experience in Alberta and especially Saskatchewan).

[Bassic Lab]

This one really is what they call a "hard case". I do agree with it though. Oddly enough, I totally disagree with the decision in the United States to replace Huckleberry Finn with new copies wherein the word "nigger" is omitted (or replaced with some other word?). Its difficult to articulate what the difference is between the two cases. To me, the use of the word "faggot" in "Money for Nothing" is just used casually and carelessly, whereas in HuckleBerry Finn, "nigger" is intimately tied to the themes and character of the novel. I can understand how people are uncomfortable about having the government making those kinds of decisions (and of course some people will always disagree with them no matter which decision they make), but someone has to do it, no?

I agree on both counts. Having previously, for good or ill, made the decision to ban certain words from the airwaves it only makes sense to apply the same standard here. I really doubt that most of the people complaining about this give two shits about artistic merit. I cannot see them arguing strongly for F bombs to be used freely on the radio and they likely have the good sense to keep their mouths shut when it comes to airing the "n" word.

With literature it just seems different. It is probably because radio friendly versions of songs are so ubiquitous. The same thing happens with movies. It is just an accepted fact of life that TBS is going to butcher R rated films. Books seem, by comparison, sacrosanct. Then again it seemed wrong when that company was releasing DVDs of films edited (cigarettes being digitally removed and such) without real consent from the artists. Part of it might be a simple desire to enforce a distinction between broadcast, where appeals for us to think of the children make some kind of sense, from the narrowest cast of individual consumption, where the artist's intent should come across unadulterated. Part of it might be, an entirely justified, disgust with attempts to revise history thereby creating a false narrative and destroying some concept of "truth". Then again, it might just be that books are irrationally deemed to be more sacred. The banning, or worse burning, of books is tied into our conception of the worst kind of regimes that can exist while not being able to here a swear during prime time is just part of our society. We are not altogether rational when it comes to such things. Hell, I would find it quite disconcerting if Mein Kampf was banned in Canada yet readily accept its de facto prohibition in Germany. I know it makes no objective sense but I cannot escape that conclusion, logic be damned.

[Xelebes]

The CBSC is a private organisation, not an entity of a government.

[Reesonov]

^ Yeah, a quick google search just made that clear. Should have done that before I posted. That explains why there's no Charter issue as well I suppose.

[Policy Wonk]

It is personally funny this comes up now as at a Christmas party we came up with a whole list of songs that would inevitably be banned as homophobic - some more preposterous than others. This was first on the list...

[Bassic Lab]

Not really - the offending lyric, in context of the song, is being spoken by a guy who sees the flamboyant entertainer on TV and is calling him names because he is jealous that the guy he is using the slanderous language against (i.e. "the little faggot") is a millionaire with an easy job. Meanwhile, this intolerant guy is busting his ass doing some donkey work at some grunt job, moving appliances.

The narrator in the song is also jealous that the musicians get the "chicks" for free. But we don't hear any whining for censorship because the song is insensitive to women and treats them all like groupies.

And nobody likes the word "faggot". But it's stupid to ban broadcast of a song that uses the word to make fun of the intolerant losers who use it.



EDIT - I have to add that I am a little concerned that this decision was made after ONE SINGLE COMPLAINT by one person. Culture critics, media experts, music industry insiders, gay rights advocates, nobody of note in any of these sectors was consulted to the best of my knowledge (although I would be delighted to be corrected if need be.) This is such an absurd, outlandish, and irrational decision. I sincerely hope it opens wide the essential fallacies within the CRTC complaints structure.

The whole complaints structure seems to value individual complaints, without investigation into conflicts-of-interest or other mitigating elements above actual cultural relevance of the broadcasts.

The problem there is that we already ban plenty of words irrespective of context. I am open to arguments that we should cease the practice but at the same time I recognize that radio and broadcast television might not be the kind of places where mature themes should be discussed. Children are not going to necessarily be able to properly understand the context. It is not like I am entirely comfortable defending broadcast standards but I can see the rationale. A lot of people seem incapable of grasping the contextual difference between black artists using the "n" word and they themselves using it as an insult. If we throw an unedited version of Holiday in Cambodia on the air, we are then telling them that it is acceptable for white people to say it. Jello Biafra's intent will no doubt escape them.

[Metro-One]

:previous: I am so happy that I am mixed heritage then, there are so many derogatory words I can say but many of you cant! ;)

I always hated that reasoning. But I must say, 25% of me is very angry at Burger King for the term "Whopper" and the portrayal of Italians in the East Side Mario's commercials, hehe.

My children will be able to use even more derogatory words that many of you can't since my wife is indeed Japanese.

If one of our children marries a black person, my grandchildren then, and especially if they are gay, will be able to essentially use every derogatory word without consequence!

[Bassic Lab]

:previous: I am so happy that I am mixed heritage then, there are so many derogatory words I can say but many of you cant! ;)

I always hated that reasoning. But I must say, 25% of me is very angry at Burger King for the term "Whopper" and the portrayal of Italians in the East Side Mario's commercials, hehe.

My children will be able to use even more derogatory words that many of you can't since my wife is indeed Japanese.

If one of our children marries a black person, my grandchildren then, and especially if they are gay, will be able to essentially use every derogatory word without consequence!

That is not necessarily what I meant by acceptable context... Irrespective of who is saying it, it should be said with care and concern for its deeply offensive connotations. My example was referencing the out and out racists who have seriously questioned why they get into trouble for it but others "don't because they're black and have special privileges".

[alps]

(1) as I understand it, the song isn't banned per se, but rather "faggot" has been replaced in the "approved version" with some other word; and


^ Thread title is misleading and should be edited.

[Dalreg]

^ Thread title is misleading and should be edited.

In what way?

The song is banned as it has been recorded. Never to be heard again in its intended form. Personnally the cbsc can go take a flying leap off the tallest building around.

[MolsonExport]

why can't they just ban auto-tune? I fukking hate auto-tune!!

[Acajack]

Normally radio stations play a modified version of the song (with "mother" instead of "faggot" -- doesn't really make sense but whatever).

.

And that version has been around for a long time. Since the song first came out and charted in fact.

[MolsonExport]

F could become M.

The little maggott....

[Acajack]

F could become M.

The little maggott....

For many years as a teen I actually thought that it was maggot that he was saying...

[HomeInMyShoes]

It should be up to the station or art gallery whether they choose to play or display an artist's work. If people find it offensive and don't want to listen they don't have to. They can lodge a complaint to the station. People that claim they are protecting their children just don't want to talk to their children about issues.

Hiding the word from our kids just means they will be uneducated about its origin, its history, its multiple meanings, and its changes over time.

[Gerrard]

Unfortunately this ruling just opens up a whole new can of worms. What about the Pogues' Fairytale of New York? Or maybe a song that uses the word "bitch" which may be offensive to women? It's all about context and in the Dire Straights song, it's not really offensive at all.

I sincerely hope it gets overturned but doubt it since we do live in a country without a Constitutionally protected right of free speech.

[SHOFEAR]

Unfortunately this ruling just opens up a whole new can of worms. What about the Pogues' Fairytale of New York?.

Indeed. I don't care at all about Dire Straits.....but Fairy Tale of New York is one of the greatest songs ever....



Thankfully K-rock has come to the rescue against, what was described earlier in this thread, a pussification of society.

Edmonton’s classic rock station K-97 is taking a stand against a recent ruling by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) to either edit or ban the song, Money for Nothing, by Dire Straits.

On Monday, the CBSC ruled the song, a radio staple since 1985, violates the code of ethics on several fronts due to the use of the word “faggot.” The second verse of the songs’ full length version contains the word three times.

The issue surfaced after a listener heard and complained about the song on a Newfoundland radio station.

Patrick Cardinal, operations manager for Edmonton Radio Group and Newcap Radio, said the words were taken out of context.

K-97 plans to make a bold statement about the ruling by playing the unedited song repeatedly from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Friday to show support for freedom of speech and Canadian songwriters, Cardinal said. .....cont


http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/edmonton/2011/01/13/16880641.html

[The_Architect]

This is stupid, they need to pay attention to the context of the song and lyrics, not just the words.
Luckily I have this album on vinyl. ;)

It amazes me that this gets banned and yet every time I hear The Who's "Who Are You", nobody has taken out "fuck" in it. Makes me laugh every time.

[MrOilers]

Wow. Apparently 'Money for Nothing' is the first song the CBSC has censored.

Censoring a word like "faggot" and allowing "nigger" sends a horrible mixed message.

[Taeolas]

Getting lots of talk all around; hopefully it will mean that the decision will be overturned, or at least looked at again. As it is, most radio stations were probably airing the shorter/sanitized version for years without issue. But because one station played the original version and one complaint was raised, this was kicked off.

I wonder what will happen with other songs that have unfiltered profanity in it. Others have mentioned other examples, but one of the biggest current examples I can think of that my local station plays alot is Hugo's "99 Problems (but the bitch ain't one)".

[Jay in Cowtown]

The pussification of society takes another step FORWARD.

there, I fixed that for ya. ;)

Well done K-Rock by the way! Do they have a sister station here in Calgary?

[MolsonExport]

Unfortunately this ruling just opens up a whole new can of worms. What about the Pogues' Fairytale of New York? Or maybe a song that uses the word "bitch" which may be offensive to women? It's all about context and in the Dire Straights song, it's not really offensive at all.

I sincerely hope it gets overturned but doubt it since we do live in a country without a Constitutionally protected right of free speech.

Whoops, forgot about that Pogues song! I love the Pogues,


Also: The bitch is back (Elton John), "....you're a rich bitch girl" (Hall & Oates)

[vid]

This just shows the world that Canada doesn't accept the mocking of ignorant people's intolerance. Sarcasm will be made illegal, next! :rolleyes:

Oh, fuck...

[alps]

In what way?

The song is banned as it has been recorded. Never to be heard again in its intended form. Personnally the cbsc can go take a flying leap off the tallest building around.

It's wrong to censor the song, but alarmist/exaggerating/unjournalistic headlines like this are something that consistently annoys me about message boards

[The Jabroni]

I shake my head in disbelief just because ONE person does not know the word "context."

I hate pussification.

[Stingray2004]

Fun fact: Dire Straits was talking about Motley Crue, specifically Nikki Sixx, when they wrote the line.

BTW, if people have trouble getting the point that Knopfler is making fun of the guy who says that, they only need to look at the animated video.

Edited to Add: Corus Radio in Vancouver (99.3 - The Fox and Classic Rock 101) have made the decision to continue to play the original version. :tup:

This censorship reminds me of the infamous incident on the Ed Sullivan Show, circa mid-1960's, when Sullivan himself told the Stones' Jagger that either the song "Let's Spend the Night Together" goes or the Stones don't play. A compromise was reached where the words were changed to "Let's Spend Some Time Together", the Stones played play the tune, but I believe that Jagger decide to go for the original lyrics, and the Stones were forever banned from the show. :D

[Metro-One]

K-97 plans to make a bold statement about the ruling by playing the unedited song repeatedly from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Friday to show support for freedom of speech and Canadian songwriters, Cardinal said.

Very nice, and if this is done without commercials, this will be my favorite radio station in Canada for the hour, haha. I love Dire Straits, and Money for Nothing is a great song. It has always bugged me when people don't know the meaning / context of Money for Nothing. My the CBSC should have actually researched the song first? I bet they have now received far more complaints regarding this decision then they ever have regarding this song before!

I guess the next song to remove is Pinball Wizard for making light of blind, deaf and dumb people, hahahaha

[Wishblade]

Here in Halifax a local radio station is going to be playing the original version of this song constantly for 1 hour in protest of the desicion. I believe I read that one in Edmonton is going to do the same.

[mr.John]

How about banning Ten years after's classic I'd love to change the world which has the words dykes and fairies or maybe the Guess who's American women which ends with goodbye American shit or for that matter virtually everything Frank Zappa recorded

[MrOilers]

I wish Frank Zappa was still alive.

The world could really use him right now.

[MonkeyRonin]

So one offended person's complaint managed to get something banned? This gives me an idea... :hmmm:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Chad_kroeger_stuttgart.jpg

[BretttheRiderFan]

Well I know what station I'll be listening to for an hour tonight! :D

[SteelTown]

I heard this song probably two months ago while my dad was driving and I was shocked at the lyrics. Sure enough it's banned.

[Metro-One]

On the news they were interviewing and asking people what they thought about this decision, and they asked a gay man who owns a sex shop and he said that he had no problem with the song. Then he said with lyrics such as being a millionaire with a personal jet airplane that "he would love to be that fag" hahahahaha.

Best comment on this situation so far.

[Jay in Cowtown]

I heard this song probably two months ago while my dad was driving and I was shocked at the lyrics. Sure enough it's banned.

Bet your dad didn't give a shit, cause his generation isn't a bunch of over-sensitive pussies. :D

[Metro-One]

:previous: Hey now, what you just said is insensitive to house cats and other felines! :D

[SteelTown]

I said to my dad "did I just hear faggot"...."yep!"....."whoa"

[BretttheRiderFan]

http://www.k97.fm/mediaplayer/player.asp

Here's the live stream of Edmonton's K-97, they play some awesome rock in the meantime too

:drummer: :rock:

[MolsonExport]

So one offended person's complaint managed to get something banned? This gives me an idea... :hmmm:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Chad_kroeger_stuttgart.jpg

:yuck: :yuck: :runaway: :gaah:

my eyes! It's the cat's asshole!

[GORDBO]

On Winnipegs classic rock station [92 CITI FM.] they've announced, several times today, that instead of playing the revised version. They simply won't play the song at all.

[Jay in Cowtown]

http://www.k97.fm/mediaplayer/player.asp

Here's the live stream of Edmonton's K-97, they play some awesome rock in the meantime too

:drummer: :rock:

That's fucking great! :haha:

that is a timeless song... used to be our "enter the ice" song when I was in Pee Wee back in the 80's!

[Me&You]

Ironically watching "Pirate Radio" right now (excellent flick, by the way).

Phillip Seymore Hoffman's character just had an excellent speech about saying "fuck" on live radio... And the absolute insignificance of it.

Fuck. Faggot. Bitch. :D

[MrOilers]

I remember Dire Straits playing live here in Edmonton during the mid-1990s (when the Oilers were absolutely horrible and Shayne Corson was their leading scorer), and what song did the band decide to play while wearing Oilers jerseys? Yup - Money for Nothing.

[BretttheRiderFan]

I remember Dire Straits playing live here in Edmonton during the mid-1990s (when the Oilers were absolutely horrible and Shayne Corson was their leading scorer), and what song did the band decide to play while wearing Oilers jerseys? Yup - Money for Nothing.

They sure have come a long way since then, eh?

:tup:

[Canadian Mind]

I think it would be neat if the song were to be played before and after every hockey game in Canada until the decision is overruled.

[vid]

I think it would be neat if the song were to be played before and after every hockey game in Canada until the decision is overruled.

Hockey arenas aren't members of the CBSC, so what would that prove?

This post at another forum only reinforces my negative stereotypes of Tea Party Southerners:

Dire Straits' "Money for Nothing" Ruled Too Offensive In Canada (http://www.tvguide.com/News/Dire-Straits-Money-1027642.aspx?rss=breakingnews&partnerid=worldnow&profileid=01)

Canada has no constitutional protection on free speech. Therefore, speech in Canada must pass the test of what the government decides may be said.

http://www.simphoni.net/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=7942&view=findpost&p=409234

I bet the branch of government that decides that is the same branch of the government that orders the death of sick elderly people and forces Good Christian Men to marry drag queens. :haha: We can call it the "Canadian Ministry of Messing with Americans' Fears and Misconceptions of Canada, of Canada"!

[BretttheRiderFan]

Hockey arenas aren't members of the CBSC, so what would that prove?

This post at another forum only reinforces my negative stereotypes of Tea Party Southerners:



I bet the branch of government that decides that is the same branch of the government that orders the death of sick elderly people and forces Good Christian Men to marry drag queens. :haha: We can call it the "Canadian Ministry of Messing with Americans' Fears and Misconceptions of Canada, of Canada"!

Americans are assclowns

[vid]

I had to explain to him that we do, in fact, have a constitution, and no one forced Mark Steyn into exile.

[freeweed]

This thread makes me sad for the youth of this country, and our lack of art appreciation - but also happy, because asshat bureaucrats can sometimes stimulate far more understanding than they realize. :haha:

Seriously, cool to see so many "wow, I never realized what that song meant" comments.

[vid]

Seriously, cool to see so many "wow, I never realized what that song meant" comments.

It is. :tup:

[Policy Wonk]

I talked to somebody who has seen Dire Straits live three times first in the late 80's and most recently in 2005 (Mark Knopfler solo) and they said that that verse was either "queenie" or "sissy" in the live performances.

[freeweed]

Interesting. They're all still slurs for "homosexual", so the point gets across. Vocalists often mix up their lyrics just to keep things fresh during live performances.

[Canadian Mind]

I gotta ask, if there are any openly gay members perusing this thread, are you or anyone you know who is also gay offended by the use of "Faggot" in this song, knowing it's context?

[youngregina]

I gotta ask, if there are any openly gay members perusing this thread, are you or anyone you know who is also gay offended by the use of "Faggot" in this song, knowing it's context?

To be quite honest, I could care less about the use of the term 'faggot', especially in this artistic and creative context. I am openly gay and have gotten use to the most slanderous terms, however have learned not to be hurt by something that is ingrained as a knee jerk reactionary term in the minds of most people. So with this song, I don't even know why anyone could be remotely offended by such use of the term 'faggot' and especially when it's poking fun at intolerant bigots.

However, songs that use the term as a negative connotation, to call someone out, or to put them down really offends me; and such songs should be banned from the airwaves, because people (children, teens) who haven't learned what the term/s mean, and the background behind the wording; will ultimately end up misusing it.

Right context = free to play.
Wrong context = censored.

[Canadian Mind]

To be quite honest, I could care less about the use of the term 'faggot', especially in this artistic and creative context. I am openly gay and have gotten use to the most slanderous terms, however have learned not to be hurt by something that is ingrained as a knee jerk reactionary term in the minds of most people. So with this song, I don't even know why anyone could be remotely offended by such use of the term 'faggot' and especially when it's poking fun at intolerant bigots.

However, songs that use the term as a negative connotation, to call someone out, or to put them down really offends me; and such songs should be banned from the airwaves, because people (children, teens) who haven't learned what the term/s mean, and the background behind the wording; will ultimately end up misusing it.

Right context = free to play.
Wrong context = censored.

I have to admit, I wasn't sure anyone would reply, and I didn't think it would literally happen overnight.

Thankyou for being open & honest and sharing your viewpoint. :tup:

[The_Architect]

Uh oh.. guys I just listened to it.. the original version.
I'll turn myself in after work.

Funny story, yesterday I was in DT Toronto and someone drove by in their car with the windows open (must have been freezing) absolutely blasting the song from their car stereo. They drove by a cop and.... nothing happened. They do not care, probably because they know it's stupid.

[Acajack]

Uh oh.. guys I just listened to it.. the original version.
I'll turn myself in after work.

Funny story, yesterday I was in DT Toronto and someone drove by in their car with the windows open (must have been freezing) absolutely blasting the song from their car stereo. They drove by a cop and.... nothing happened. They do not care, probably because they know it's stupid.

The CBSC does not have any legal, binding authority over anything, as far as I know...

[amaruk]

To be quite honest, I could care less about the use of the term 'faggot', especially in this artistic and creative context. I am openly gay and have gotten use to the most slanderous terms, however have learned not to be hurt by something that is ingrained as a knee jerk reactionary term in the minds of most people. So with this song, I don't even know why anyone could be remotely offended by such use of the term 'faggot' and especially when it's poking fun at intolerant bigots.

However, songs that use the term as a negative connotation, to call someone out, or to put them down really offends me; and such songs should be banned from the airwaves, because people (children, teens) who haven't learned what the term/s mean, and the background behind the wording; will ultimately end up misusing it.

Right context = free to play.
Wrong context = censored.

I'm openly gay, and your views pretty much sum up mine as well.

[manny_santos]

Hockey arenas aren't members of the CBSC, so what would that prove?

This post at another forum only reinforces my negative stereotypes of Tea Party Southerners:



I bet the branch of government that decides that is the same branch of the government that orders the death of sick elderly people and forces Good Christian Men to marry drag queens. :haha: We can call it the "Canadian Ministry of Messing with Americans' Fears and Misconceptions of Canada, of Canada"!

Actually, if one group in Quebec gets its way the former of the two will be a reality in a few years in that province.

As for the second one, well in this secular country finding a suitable spouse for a good Christian person is next to impossible. That has nothing to do with the government though, that's cultural.

I will admit though that sometimes I feel like I live in the People's Republic of China, with the kind of broadcasting censorship we have.

[manny_santos]

Hockey arenas aren't members of the CBSC, so what would that prove?

This post at another forum only reinforces my negative stereotypes of Tea Party Southerners:



I bet the branch of government that decides that is the same branch of the government that orders the death of sick elderly people and forces Good Christian Men to marry drag queens. :haha: We can call it the "Canadian Ministry of Messing with Americans' Fears and Misconceptions of Canada, of Canada"!

While definitely an exaggeration, it's not far off the truth. If one group in Quebec gets its way the former of the two will be a reality in a few years in that province.

As for the second one, well in an ultra-secular country like Canada it is next to impossible for a practicing Christian person to find a suitable spouse, but that has nothing to do with the government, that's cultural.

[mr.John]

What's the fuss about this song? I thought everyone knew it was a thinly veiled jab at PRINCE...I'm sure that little faggot does have his own jet airplane

[MolsonExport]

^I always thought that it was directed at Elton John, what with his toupee.

[Acajack]

I have heard it was a reference to glam rockers like Motley Crue. A lot of the glam rockers were quite effeminate in their appearance in those days, although quite hetero in their, er, behaviour.

[mr.John]

Nope I'm quite sure the little faggot is Prince or the faggot formerly known as Prince..incidentally the word fag is a common slag in England for cigarettes so maybe Mark was referring to a heavy smoker

[Bassic Lab]

Uh oh.. guys I just listened to it.. the original version.
I'll turn myself in after work.

Funny story, yesterday I was in DT Toronto and someone drove by in their car with the windows open (must have been freezing) absolutely blasting the song from their car stereo. They drove by a cop and.... nothing happened. They do not care, probably because they know it's stupid.

Or it is because you do not understand what this is about. This does not mean that private citizens will be arrested for listening to the song. This is about the board, set up by the broadcasting industry, finding the unedited version of the song offensive and suggesting that its membership not play it over the airwaves. So "faggot" is joining "fuck", "nigger", and other words that get voluntarily bleeped or replaced when a song including them is played on the radio. Yes, this is clearly a big deal; the "pussification" of Canadian society marches on; we have no free speech.

Do the people massively opposed to this thrive on hyperbole or do they just not understand what it means?

[The_Architect]

I was joking. I responded to an exaggeration with another exaggeration.

[Acajack]

Nope I'm quite sure the little faggot is Prince or the faggot formerly known as Prince..

Nikki Sixx and other Motley Crue band members have long claimed they were the inspiration for the song. You can find many news articles that refer to this, although Knopfler has never confirmed or disputed this as far as I can tell.

As for Prince, he may have worn earrings but there was nothing outlandish about "his own hair"...

incidentally the word fag is a common slag in England for cigarettes so maybe Mark was referring to a heavy smoker

Hmmm. Not likely... ;)

[MrOilers]

The song was written in the 80s about performers at the time.

I am sure we could come up with a list of at least hundred guys in music who had earrings, makeup, and crazy hair who were popular at the time.

[mr.John]

GAY GAY GAY


http://beatcrave.frsucrave.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/prince.jpg]

http://beatcrave.frsucrave.netdna-cdn.com

[MolsonExport]

GAY GAY GAY


http://beatcrave.frsucrave.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/prince.jpg]

http://beatcrave.frsucrave.netdna-cdn.com


The artist formerly known as the unpronouncable squiggle?

[vid]

Nope I'm quite sure the little faggot is Prince or the faggot formerly known as Prince..incidentally the word fag is a common slag in England for cigarettes so maybe Mark was referring to a heavy smoker

To answer Canadian Mind's question, the wanton use of "faggot" like mr.John is doing here annoys me, but the way it was used in the song is fine because of the context.

It's not a word that you should just throw around all the time and it pisses me off when I hear people use it (and "gay") like that. It is this kind of behaviour that I think undermines the effort to get political correctness to ease up on society, because it almost justifies decisions like the one CBSC made the other day.

[SpongeG]

Halifax radio station's 'Money for Nothing' marathon generates complaints

By The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press – Mon, 17 Jan 8:57 PM EST

HALIFAX - A radio station in Halifax that defied a ruling against a Dire Straits hit by playing a "Money for Nothing" marathon said Monday it's heard from some listeners who've threatened to lodge complaints.


An unedited version of the song was played repeatedly on Q104 for an hour Friday in protest of a recent decision by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.

The independent watchdog ruled the 25-year-old song was unfit for Canadian radio because its lyrics include the word "faggot" three times. The ruling stemmed from a complaint filed by a listener of a station in St. John's, N.L.

J.C. Douglas, program director at Q104, said a few listeners have sent emails since the marathon saying they intend to file a complaint with the council, while other listeners told him they have already done so.

Others have written merely to say they're unhappy with the station's decision to continue playing the tune, which Douglas said airs every two or three days.

"It's a fairly straight-forward argument that's being made in most of these complaints — just that the word 'faggot' itself is damaging and hurtful and has no place on the airwaves," Douglas said in an interview.

"And we can't help but agree with that from a general standpoint. Our argument is completely contextual."

Douglas maintains the song, which was released in 1985, is written from the perspective of a bigot and needs to be considered as such.

"Every single word of this song comes from (the character's) point of view, so if you're not considering that context, then you're not actually listening to the song."

...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/halifax-radio-stations-money-nothing-marathon-generates-complaints-20110117-123904-741.html

[Gerrard]

^I always thought that it was directed at Elton John, what with his toupee.

Agree, that's who I always thought/heard it was about. But the chicks for free doesn't really apply to him. I also heard it was referring to George Michael/Wham!. And surprisingly, Prince is a total homophobe.

[MolsonExport]

Given context, it is rather like banning "All in the Family" (Archie, played by Carrol O'Connor, is a bigot)


Come to think of it, Archie looks a lot (sounds a lot) like that tub of shit, Rush Limbaugh.

http://www.biografiasyvidas.com/biografia/o/fotos/o_connor_carroll.jpg

[freeweed]

Given context, it is rather like banning "All in the Family" (Archie, played by Carrol O'Connor, is a bigot)

This is precisely what pisses me off about this. Now, let me make one thing clear: I'm not in favour of censorship in almost any form. However....

Censorship of a word is silly, period. But if you're going to censor something, I'd think it would at least make a tiny fraction of sense to censor legitimately hateful/hurtful things. If Dire Straits had sung "let's kick that faggot to the curb", I could at least understand the thinking. But they're censoring a WORD. Not a thought. Not an offensive statement. A word. Anyone who listens to the actual lyrics realizes they're making fun of bigotted rednecks. NOT saying something offensive towards gay people.

Archie Bunker was deliberately and intentionally cruel towards other people. He was the very essence of racism as it existed in the 1970s (and still exists today, if a bit more hidden). Now, some will argue that the character was a parody of a racist white guy, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's what the creators intended. However I know for a fact that many people actually looked up to the character as a hero. A "good guy" who "tells it like it is". So maybe, just MAYBE I can see some rationale behind this.

I dunno, it's hard to articulate my sheer confusion over why and what we censor. It's kind of like at the Flames game the other day - they have all these signs warning you to not use "profanity", and in fact security will hassle you if they hear you saying "bad" words. I find this highly bizarre considering we're sitting around watching men who are paid good money to settle their anger through physical violence (fighting isn't exactly uncommon), while being surrounded by intoxicated patrons. Maybe it's just me, but the fighting and excess drinking might just slightly be a worse thing for kids to be exposed to than the word "fuck". But I'm know to hold insane ideas.

[MrGrinch]

We watched "The Breakfast Club" on encore avenue last week and this word was used "negatively" a couple of times in the movie by Emilio Estivez's character. I guess this classic 80's movie will be next to be removed...

[Me&You]

...

I dunno, it's hard to articulate my sheer confusion over why and what we censor. It's kind of like at the Flames game the other day - they have all these signs warning you to not use "profanity", and in fact security will hassle you if they hear you saying "bad" words. I find this highly bizarre considering we're sitting around watching men who are paid good money to settle their anger through physical violence (fighting isn't exactly uncommon), while being surrounded by intoxicated patrons. Maybe it's just me, but the fighting and excess drinking might just slightly be a worse thing for kids to be exposed to than the word "fuck". But I'm know to hold insane ideas.

Not to mention anyone seated in the lower bowl can hear every f-bomb dropped by the players throughout the game... and there are a lot of them!

This whole thing is ridiculous. Out of curiosity, is anyone familiar with censorship/tolerance in other countries... The UK, France, Germany, Mexico, etc? Are we being overly coddled, or is this level of censorship pretty par for the course?

[Acajack]

This whole thing is ridiculous. Out of curiosity, is anyone familiar with censorship/tolerance in other countries... The UK, France, Germany, Mexico, etc? Are we being overly coddled, or is this level of censorship pretty par for the course?

It depends on your definition of tolerance and censorship. There are many areas to consider: profanity, nudity/sexuality, inclusiveness/political correctness/pluralism.

The whole "Money for Nothing" thing is a question of "inclusiveness/political correctness/pluralism" if you ask me. I would say many western countries are generally on the same page as Canada on this front (at least these days), and that variances between them tend to be related to what issues are brought to the fore. The whole "Money for Nothing" thing could very well have happened in the U.S., the U.K., Germany or France, I'd say.

Silvio Berlusconi caused a huge uproar in Italy last year when he said it was better "to like pretty girls than to be gay"... Of course, maybe the fact that the leader of the country actually thought it OK to say that tells you something as well...

But I still think that the biggest differences in censorship between countries are related to profanity, nudity and sexuality.

[MolsonExport]

http://macleans.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/mac_cover_090817.jpg?w=485
CrapLean's Magazine


Stay thirsty, my friends.

[Acajack]

http://macleans.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/mac_cover_090817.jpg?w=485
CrapLean's Magazine


Stay thirsty, my friends.

Yes, he is certainly interesting. In like what the Chinese mean when they refer to something as being "interesting".

[MrOilers]

CRTC asks the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council to review decision to ban Dire Straits song
OTTAWA-GATINEAU, January 21, 2011 —

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission today wrote to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) asking it to review its determination that the unedited version of the song “Money for Nothing” by Dire Straits was inappropriate for Canadian radio. On January 12, 2011, the CBSC’s Atlantic Regional Panel found that the use of a derogatory word in the song breached broadcast codes.

The CBSC’s decision has elicited a strong public reaction and created uncertainty for private radio stations across the country. The Commission has received over 250 letters from Canadians, most of which questioned the decision. These letters have been forwarded to the CBSC.

Given the exceptional nature of this situation, the Commission has asked the CBSC to appoint a panel with a national composition to review the complaints regarding the Dire Straits’ song as well as its original decision.

The Commission expects that the council will seek further comments from the public on the matter. Furthermore, the CBSC should take into consideration all relevant factors, including:


the context of the particular wording in the song’s theme and intended message
the age and origin of the song and the performance date
the prominence of the contested word and the use of that word over time, and
the length of time and frequency that it has been playing on the radio.



http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com100/2011/r110121.htm

[mr.John]

listen to the lyrics (first 2 minutes)of this musical horror


1uOB6m8c8WI

[Elmira Guy]

listen to the lyrics (first 2 minutes)of this musical horror


1uOB6m8c8WI

"Musical horror"?!?! I take offence sir!

Not only is he one of my favourite musicians, but he also possessed a boat-load more musical talent and creative flair than all of the shite played on the radio today!

[ssiguy]

I never knew it was "yeah buddy, that's his own hair". I always thought it was "hey buddy, that's his own affair".
Anyway, another insecure tight ass who wants to get his name in the paper.....how could anyone with any sense of morality censor Dire Straights?

[freeweed]

"Musical horror"?!?! I take offence sir!

Not only is he one of my favourite musicians, but he also possessed a boat-load more musical talent and creative flair than all of the shite played on the radio today!

He must have used all that talent in his other music. I agree with the original post, this is not only just plain bad music, it's horrible lyrically. Let's just say if you've ever heard Corey Feldman's band, you'll understand what I mean by bad lyrics. If you have not, consider yourself lucky. :haha:

Although why you'd use "played on the radio today" as comparison is beyond me. Nothing good has been played on the radio in years, everyone knows that. Fortunately the vast majority of music never makes the radio and hasn't for a long, long time now.

[Elmira Guy]

He must have used all that talent in his other music. I agree with the original post, this is not only just plain bad music, it's horrible lyrically. Let's just say if you've ever heard Corey Feldman's band, you'll understand what I mean by bad lyrics. If you have not, consider yourself lucky. :haha:

Well if this album is your only experience with Zappa's music, then so be it. The vast majority of music listeners find Zappa a little hard to comprehend at times, and that's not meant to be condescending. His music is a combination of many styles, and many musicians got their start with him.
He is also very satirical, with many jabs at the music industry, censorship (this album in particular), religion, and conservatism.

Unlike the vast majority, music has greater import to me then whether or not it's good accompaniment for pounding down rye.

When a band like Nickelback does as well as they have done, you know the state of rock is in dire straits. ;-)

[Bdog]

I never knew this was a real song - I always thought Weird Al's "Beverly Hilbillies" was the original ;)

[freeweed]

I never knew this was a real song - I always thought Weird Al's "Beverly Hilbillies" was the original ;)

My dog - next you'll be telling us you've never heard of this quaint little British band, "the Beatles"...