Enlightenment
On May 13, 1985, Dire Straits’ fifth album, Brothers in Arms, appeared in stores. Along the way to selling 30 million copies worldwide, it was also the very first album to sell a million copies on compact disc, thereby helping to establish the marketability of what was then a struggling new audio format. Eventually, it far outsold its vinyl and cassette counterparts. Brothers reached #1 in Canada, the US, the UK, Germany, France and a host of other countries. In the Netherlands, it broke the all-time chart streak, staying in those charts for a total of 269 weeks.
It remains an incredibly strong and consistent album, a point underscored by the fact that eight of its nine tracks were at some point released as singles somewhere in the world.
Amongst those singles was “Money for Nothing,” a song inspired by the early 80s “I Want My MTV” campaign, which exhorted fans to call their local cable companies and demand that it carry this new music video channel which was threatening to die on the vine due to under-exposure.
“Money for Nothing” was a monster. It was a number one single across the globe. It won a Grammy for Best Rock Performance by a Duo or Group with a Vocal in 1985. It was performed at Live Aid. It’s become a staple of classic rock radio around the world. Since the spring of 1985, it has been aired untold millions of times on radios everywhere, including, of course, Canada.
However, as of today–January 12, 2011–the original version of “Money for Nothing”–is essentially banished from Canadian airwaves. Why?
What follows is an interesting journey on how a song can be regulated off the air in this country.
The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council is an organization run by Canada’s private broadcasters. In exchange for the government or the CRTC not meddling in the on-air content affairs of the country’s 730-odd private radio and TV stations, broadcasters have long promised to regulate themselves. Over the years, a set of very comprehensive standards has been established to which broadcasters promise to adhere. This, they (we) maintain, means no government intervention is necessary.
This is seen as much preferable to the arrangment in the US where the FCC–a government organization run by political appointees–carries a very heavy hammer when it comes to regulating broadcast content. Remember all the hysterical fallout from the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake “wardrobe malfunction?” The FCC was all over that.
They’re also most concerned about foul language polluting the public airwaves, which is why radio stations can be heavily fined if a cuss word slips by in a song. It’s also why a lot of American radio stations will edit out other words that may be considered offensive. “Whore” is a good example of a word some find too ugly for American radio. MTV won’t play any videos with lyrics mentioning guns or drugs.
In Canada, we tend to be a lot more chill about these things. Songs that feature a naughty word or two can be played for years and years without a single issue. If no one complains, the feeling is that there’s no need to censor it. Well, in practice, anyway.
If a Canadian hears a track that get a little intense in terms of its subject matter, the usual reaction by offended party is a little tut-tutting, following by the turning off of the radio or the switching of stations.. But should anyone wish to complain about something, it’s as simple as turning on a computer and filling out this form. All it takes is one person making one complaint for the entire appartus of the CBSC to come to full gallop.
When a complaint is received, a panel is convened and the matter is investigated from all sides (including examination of the original audio/video tapes and, if necessary, follow-up questions with all parties). Finally, a decision is rendered and that decision becomes part of the body of standards moving forward. It’s expected–demanded–that these rulings are respected by member broadcasters. Otherwise, this successful, well-managed, self-regulating body will become toothless in the eyes of the CRTC and the government. That would be bad.
As someone who has had to deal with literally hundreds of CBSC complaints over the years, I have developed a healthy respect for the organization and its processes. I also like its flexibility and how it adapts to changing public tolerences, mores and expectations. I may not always agree with some CBSC rulings, but our system is far, far better than what the US or even the British have to deal with.
But back to “Money for Nothing.” The controversy surrounding the use of the word “faggot” in the song’s second verse goes back to when the song was first released in 1985. Mark Knopfler, the band and the record company took quite a bit of grief and had to deal with accusations of homophobia, sexism and even racism.
In response, sanitized versions of the song were made available. In some, the word is reversed, making it completely unintelligable. In others, it’s replaced by Knopfler saying “mother.” The 7-inch single version had the entire second verse edited out to avoid the issue entirely. But with 30 million copies of the album out there, the “faggot” verse lived on–many in radio station libraries.
On February 1, 2010, Oz-FM in St. John’s, Newfoundland, played the original album version of “Money for Nothing.” One listener was most upset:
A song was aired, “Money For Nothing” by Dire Straits, and included the word “faggot” a total of three times. I am aware of other versions of the song, in which the word was replaced with another, and yet OZ FM chose to play and not censor this particular version that I am complaining about. I find this extremely offensive as a member of the LGBT community and feel that there is absolutely no valid reason for such discriminatory marks to be played on-air.
Unable to reach a satisfactory resolution with the radio station, the matter moved to the CBSC. After deliberating the matter, the panel ruled in favour of the listener.
This should mean that the original version of “Money for Nothing” will be hereafter replaced by a version without the offending word on all Canadian radio stations which play it. If they don’t and someone reports it, then we’re back into a fecal blizzard.
I can’t say that I’m entirely unsympathetic. Back in ’85, “faggot” was an epithet thrown around by almost everyone. It wasn’t much of an issue–just like the days when the use of the n-word was frighteningly common. Over the years, I found myself noticing that lyric more often and growing a little more uncomfortable. It somehow just wasnt…right. But that was the extent of my reaction. The song was, at most, a period piece when it came to a certain colloquialism.
Today, any use of the word “faggot” is just not acceptable to many people and we’re perhaps more enlightened to the feelings of others. Hence the CBSC’s decision. They obviously feel that they’re just rolling with the times and following their own standards and precedents.
But to issue a ban against the song? Now? Two-and-a-half decades later? With this decision, they’ve opened a really pissed-0ff can of worms.
You might well ask “What song is next? What else will the nanny state deem as unacceptable?” I can think of more than a dozen tracks with cuss words or offensive terms that are still being played on Canadian radio–some for more than 30 years–because no one has ever complained.
But don’t you worry: someone will find them, maybe starting with the Pogues’ “Fairytale of New York,” a song consistently voted as one of the most beloved modern Christmas songs.
And by the way, should you feel moved to make yourself known on this particular issue, you can contact the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council at (613) 233-4607, ext. 14. Ask for Ron.
Failing that, you can email him at ron.cohen@cbsc.ca.
Send to a friend
Filed Under: Enlightenment
Tagged Under: Brothers in Arms, Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, CBSC, Dire Straits, Money for Nothing, Oz-FM
Tagged Under: Brothers in Arms, Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, CBSC, Dire Straits, Money for Nothing, Oz-FM
add a comment
48 Comments
-
I wince a little when I hear the original version in the company of people from the LGBT community. Because there’s no way to just out of the blue start up a conversation about how it’s a character in the song saying those lyrics and the character in the song is being portrayed as ignorant. In other words, Mark Knopfler as the writer of the song identifies as the “faggot”, having taken flak from working-class people for making money as a rock musician.
Those lines (and the ‘banging on the bongoes like a chimpanzee’ line) are, to anyone who cares to pay attention, a criticism of the character in the song.
-
I cannot say that I am in favour of songs that are full of expletives or may encourage “inappropriate” behaviour, but music is created by ARTists. The retroactive censoring of a piece of music that has been around and accepted for years is very distasteful. Next thing you know classic books and stories like Mark Twain will be modernized/made politically correct to reflect today’s times, not giving us an idea of the era in which they were created. Oh…wait a minute – that’s happening, too.
-
While I don’t remember the word “faggot” being so much more common back then, the point remains that in the song, it’s being said by a rough working-class guy turning his nose up at pop and rock stars like Knopfler himself. It’s unfortunate when mere words take precedence over context, and that all other stations must follow suit in responding.
Some of the antics of more than a few morning show hosts mocking homosexuals, while usually not using the offending words outright, are more deserving of concern – and in fact, such complaints have been made to the CBSC and taken in a case-by-case, station-by-station basis.
-
way to be right on top of things CRTC. only took you what 25 years?
-
I don’t mean to knit-pick, but it was a decision by the CBSC, not the CRTC.
-
The expression is nit-pick, not knit-pick – it is about picking nits (i.e. lice) out of your hair and blankets, which requires a fine eye for detail.
Knit-picking I guess would be more akin to trying to unravel a mistake. So maybe the sensors could be encouraged to knit-pick their foolishness – we can’t white-wash history. (and that’s not a racist term, it refers to a process of changing the colour of a wall to white by ‘washing’ it with a water-based cheap paint made from slaked lime and chalk – read Tom Sawyer to get a picture of it.
-
-
@Ross Neilsen: Did you even read the article? This has naught to do with the CRTC, they aren’t even involved.
-
-
I have just finished reading the case on the CBSC website (http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/2011/110112.php) and must say, it was a very difficult call. The fact that this song has been around and played in its original format for 25 years is a very good point however it makes it a perfect target for the CAB Equitable Portrayal Code, Clause 9 which focuses on language and terminology. It says right in the code that it must be considered that languange does change over time and broadcasters should adapt to this changing atmosphere. While I definitely do not always agree with this perspective (just as in the Mark Twain example that Douglas raised with the changing of the “n-word” to “slaves”), one must also respect that the CBSC bases its decisions on the guidelines set out by the CAB (Canadian Association of Broadcasters) Codes. It is also to be noted that if a censored version is available, then it makes it harder to argue that it has always been acceptable.
Like I said, it certainly is a very close call. For the most part I agree with you, Alan, in that it is a bit of oversensitivity to a lyric that is 25 years old and that it should not be sensored. I must, however disagree with you in that I respect the CBSC’s decision. You said yourself, our system is one that is much better than the FCC, one that is generally more tolerant, and one that functions. In order to function, though, it must adhere to the CAB codes and while you and I may disagree with it, the panel’s interpretation of these codes deemed these lyrics inappropriate and we must simply accept it… I guess.
I am a big fan of your show and articles. Thank you for writing about this. It is an important issue and not enough people know how Canada filters its broadcasting content. I have met far too many people that believed the FCC censored Canadian broadcasters as well…
-
After reading other peoples’ comments I feel as though I have left out the important issue of context. In the context of the song, the word in question really does not appear to be all that offensive toward the LGBT community. The word itself is not generally accepted, however it is not trying to incite hatred toward and particular group. This does actually appear to make the decision a little harder to accept…
-
You’re right, the issue of context is key here, especially in the decision. Living in the time when this song was created, I can tell you that using this word didn’t necessarily refer to a person’s sexual orientation. You used it as an insult against someone you didn’t like or respect. In the context of the song, the character isn’t calling the musician a homosexual. He is referring to the fact that the musician does not have his respect (likely out of jealousy for all the things the musician has for playing guitar, that he does not in spite of hard, physical labour).
It should also be noted that in the ruling, the CBSC cited another case where a comedian used the word “fag” in a way that DID refer to homosexual men in contrast to straight men, and this was decided to be acceptable, according to the board. To me this is a huge miss on their part. In their decision banning a song that does NOT necessarily consist of a sexually derogatory slur, they quote an opposite decision where the word clearly was. Someone messed up…
-
-
-
Speaking as a long-time radio guy and a music director who’s worked in several different formats (including Classic Rock & Classic Hits, where this song is played on a very regular rotation), here are my thoughts:
This song is almost 30 years old. It’s a classic. It has been played TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TIMES on radio stations ALL OVER THE WORLD. Why, oh why did it take THIS long for someone to complain about it? And WHY did the CBSC decide to side with this person?
While they’re at it, they’d better take out the word “chick” as well (from the line, “Money for nothing and my chicks for free” as this could be seen to be derogatory towards women.
And perhaps the title of Elton John’s “Bitch Is Back” should be changed as “Bitch” could also be considered derogatory to women.
And the lyrics to The Who’s “Pinball Wizard” should be changed from “deaf, dumb & blind boy” as those terms are no longer politically correct.
And we should just edit out ALL the lyrics to “Brown Sugar” by the Rolling Stones since the entire song is all about buying slaves, whipping them and having sex with them.
Should I continue down the slippery slope?
You can almost compare this whole situation to the recent stories of people in the US calling for the changing of a character’s name in Mark Twain’s classic “Huck Finn” & “Tom Sawyer” novels; the politically correct crowd have been… calling for the name – and yes, I’m about to go there, so avert your eyes if you’re easily offended – “Nigger Jim” to “Slave Jim”.
The stories that Twain presented were written in the late 1800′s and are meant to be read in THAT context…NOT a 2011 “political correctness gone mad” society. Now, am I saying that we should be tossing the N-word around all willy-nilly? Definitely NOT. But will changing one word in a book help solve all the world’s racial issues? Oh HELL no!
Just as removing the word “faggot” (which, I might add appears 3 times for a total of about 7 seconds in a song that is over 7 minutes long) in a song that’s almost 30 years old will NOT solve the issue of intolerance towards homosexual people.
-
This is all too true and I really like all of the valid comparisons to other songs.
With regards to the Mark Twain censorship happening, I personally think that “Slave” almost sounds worse. I do not see how it is fixing any PC issue at all.
-
WELL SAID
-
-
What about “woman is the nigger of the world”…
Remember when that came out?
Music is just an expression and anyone willing to change that expression is a very unfortunate soul!
We should be able to hear any version available! Especially in these times of acceptance and especially in canada!
This is so much the opposite of GAY and I think a sad time for anyone feeling singled out by a songs lyrics. Manson used to think songs were written to him too… Need I say more??? -
With ALL due respect to the sensitivities of my gay friends who might be offended by the f* word … but…
I was more struck by the fact that all it took was ONE …
“ONE” person to complain !! Out of a whole country !! The size of Canada !!
That seems a very powerful point.
Maybe even a little dangerous given the militant nature of some religeous fanatics.
Maybe “I” should listen to a gospel station and start writing letters …-
Religious fanatics try it all the time. Here is one of my favourites. A woman was offended by a Television station running “The Last Temptation of Christ”. This woman was so offended by this Oscar nominated film, directed by Oscar winning Martin Scorsese and based on the book by reknown author Nikos Kazantzakis, that she complained to the CBSC. The CBSC reviewed the complaint but ultimately ruled that it was not in any way unnacceptable. It is a film, an artistic representation of somebody’s interpretation of Christ.
This is also a very interesting case and can be found here: http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/1996/961218d.php
-
-
I have to say, you all have very good points. I like the song. I was born in 84, but my parents always had classic rock playing, and I like it myself.
The only concern that I have is that I want to be able to play the radio station in the car when I’m driving my nephew around, or my kids. I understand that it’s a context thing, or a sign on the times, but I really don’t want them picking up that word, and in all honesty I don’t want to listen to it myself.
There is always going to be something out there that offends someone, and we are never going to be able to appease everyone out there, someone will always be offended, but why should a word that would get my nephew suspended at school be allowed to play over the airwaves?
Also, as for changing words in novels, for a school setting, this is very appropriate. (I’m a teacher). When you are an adult, and able to make your own decisions and educate yourself, you can read an un-edited version. But if you are teaching a novel, or your child is studying it in school, you don’t want to have that word floating around. I could get fired for saying it! In a multicultural classroom, you don’t want to offend/hurt/discriminate against any of your students, and how can you do that with the N word being said aloud?
-
I believe a teacher using a Mark Twain novel in class should be prepared to discuss the time frame in which the novel takes place and how the language at that time was used.
As a teacher, you should see this as an excellent example of being able to mix social studies, language arts and history into a single lesson plan. By avoiding the original words, you are actually providing a dis-service to your students and missing an excellent opportunity to impart some valuable knowledge.-
I agree with you that there is a lot people can learn from the novel, and the original wording. “As a parent, I am not going to freak out when my kid asks me what does (insert bad word here) mean?” – I will simply explain that the word is hurtful and that we shouldn’t use it. But as a teacher, I am not the parent of my students, and it is not my decision for that language to be used. Also, my classroom needs to be safe and comfortable for all of my students. The use of the N word in my classroom definitely goes against that.
-
-
“In a multicultural classroom, you don’t want to offend/hurt/discriminate against any of your students, and how can you do that with the N word being said aloud?”
Bull! You’re not discriminating by reading a classic novel. And as long as you aren’t calling your black students niggers then it’s an irrelevant argument.
Nigger Jim is a character. The fact that he’s black and a slave and discriminated against is THE POINT.
The lyrics of Money for Nothing are also in the voice of a CHARACTER and the song is mocking his closemindedness.
If you’re offended then TURN OFF THE RADIO, don’t tell the station that they can’t play a song you don’t like.
Maybe I’ll complain about Justin Beiber, Katy Perry and Ke$ha and they can be removed from the radio.
-
-
Pingback: World Spinner
-
My understanding was that it was the edited version that was much more common on radio airplay generally — I believe MTV and BBC, among others, don’t air the faggot version. Can anyone confirm/correct?
-
I can understand that the word is commonly used as a derogatory way to describe homosexual individuals and I have nothing against gay people at all. But I’m sorry, no one forces you to listen to the song and you do not have any legal right whatsoever to not be offended by something! If you don’t like that song, tell the radio station and DON’T LISTEN TO THEM! I am so sick of the politically correct nonsense that has taken over Canada. One whiny person who feels that their views need to be taken as gospel by the rest of the country complains and the industry trips over itself to accommodate them, even though as others have said, this song has been played without incident for 25 years.
If you don’t like the lyrics to something, change the station and shut up. The rest of us are not requires to accommodate your hyper sensitivity.
-
I think Frank Zappa argued the anti-censorship position well in this hilarious interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ISil7IHzxc
-
What other songs are banned because of lyrics like this? The CRTC or CBSC must have a list somewhere, is this just 1 of hundreds that are banned for similar reasons or is ‘Money for Nothing’ them cracking down and becoming a little more censor-happy?
-
I really hope that Chuck Berry and his Dingaling don’t get banned!
Or Elvis for that matter…. All those hips and pelvic thrusts!!!
The Flintstones theme song…. Etc….People have to much time on their hands to complain about stuff!
All of my gay friends are not offended by the word “faggot”, nor are any of my straight friends offended by the practically naked pride parade that happens every year.When you find out where the term originates from, having the word banned seems obsurd.
To the “teacher”… If you need to rewrite an artists work it is no longer the artists true worth. What is the point of teaching it if it is already” wrong”?
This whole scenario is truly bullshit and upsetting.
-
Oh dear Ian. You used the word “bullshit”. I was eating my dinner while reading that and it spoiled my appetite. I have a right to full and proper nutrition without let or hindrance. So I will be writing to my ISP to have exploremusic.com blocked.
. . . . . not.
-
-
If one persons opinion can disrupt workings of an entire industry
then I beliebewe have definitaly taken political correctness to far.
The listner has a choice to change the channel but once the content
has been altered it leaves the question – Wye should every other reasonable person be misled by incorrect content?
So much for freedom of speech. -
The irony of it is that the publicity draws more attention to the original lyric than if the stupid person had just shut up!
-
I THINK THIS IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE.
I LOVE THIS SONG – WASN’T IT THE FIRST TO AIR ON MTVWHAT IF SOMEONE COMPLAINS ABOUT CHRISTMAS CAROLS ON THE AIR, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT JIVE (CAN I USE THAT WORD) WITH THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. WELL THEY BAN CHRISTMAS CAROLS FROM THE AIR?
-
The first video to air on mtv was “Video Killed the Radio Star” by The Buggles
-
-
Hey, instead of complaining about it here, maybe you should phone that guy as suggested? Maybe it would be helpful for them to hear from thousands of people that feel the word “faggot” is acceptable in this song, rather than one noisy person who does not.
Who else remembers a time when an artist could be proud to be a faggot? We didn’t care back then. We loved them because they rocked. That was more than just “tolerance” – it was genuine acceptance. Now we gotta walk on eggshells because people are scared of words, and that’s not progress.
A friend of mine is a faggot. My girlfriend is a paki. My dad is a redskin or a chug. I love them all. Words are just words. Maybe some day society will wake up and see that.
-
Pingback: WTF Canada Broadcasting Standards Council - Poker Forum Canada
-
Interesting, Edmonton Radio K-97 Continues to Play Money For Nothing Unedited
http://www.k97.ca/indexwhite.asp?id=164&mn=25&cc=1
They will also be playing a MONEY FOR NOTHING HOUR”. From 8pm – 9pm on Friday, January 14th, 2011 K-97’s Todd James will be playing the Dire Straits “Money For Nothing” unedited and non stop for the entire hour.
-
Hello from Winnipeg Allan. Missing you on the airways out here on a regular basis.
I am just as confused as most of the people here in Winnipeg. Yes I understand that the word “Faggot” can be offensive to people but really why make such a big deal out of a song that was drifting away into obscurity anyway.
Really who but people over the age of 40 even remember the song to begin with? When will the radio police start actually looking in the liner notes for offensive lyrics? Hell, even the term Rock and Roll describes an adult act if taken in the literal blues context that it was taken from.
I have written a piece on this act of censorship for my readers. Please feel free to share my words with yours.
92 Citi still rocks!!
Bob -
Pingback: Dire Straits' 'Money for Nothing' should be censored, broadcast panel rules
-
Wake Up People…
History is in the past, it may not be pretty but you can not change it.
Wanting to change a word in a thirty year old song is ridiculous, especially since it is only played occasionally on a radio station in which you are not required to listen.
Changing the fact that the “N” word was commonly used in society, as captured in Mark Twain’s novel.
So if we do not like something it will be banned. If we are uncomfortable with a word or topic we can change it, play it down ignore it and pretend it did not happen.
Everyone on this planet does not like something. So what else is up for change now ???
- Old Yeller is going to live
- Bambi’s mom will live
- Noah seen a little rain
- World Wars were misunderstandings
- Hilter’s actions
- 911,
- Etc…Now what about people who have problems with different religions?
-no longer Christmas (but they must give up the extra pay and benefits that are associated with the holiday)
-If you agree that it is 2011, then you believe in Christ (the whole BC (Before Christ) AD (After Death)).
-virgins after death -
I think this is all a matter of “newspeak”. Just like in the book 1984. If you change the words or lyrics of book or song, you are changing history. It is important for later generations to know what really happened and the way people really thought during a specific time period. Dont try and change the past. Change the future by reflecting on the actions of people before you.
And by the way, it’s only a song, and only a word. Look at the big picture. Whoever complained about this is a moron, and should find something better to do as a hobby. Twenty years from now it’ll be “unPC” to call it the LGBT anyway!
-
Everyone seems to be debating whether or not the word is truly offensive or not. What I don’t understand is why the song was outright banned, as opposed to limiting stations to playing the versions without the word.
Does anyone know? The article mentions it briefly, but with no explanation of why their actions were so drastic.
-
Isn’t there a medical condition for one who’s thin skinned?
I’m also a member of the LGBT community and I don’t think there’s anything here worth getting pissed off over. So bleep it out if you really feel like it, but don’t ban the tune outright.
-
First off, words are just that; WORDS. To take a page from the late, great George Carlin, words can’t hurt you! Context is everything! Context is what gives words they’re power. Artists, and everyone else, should be allowed to use whatever word they want as long as it is in the right context.
This song is about ignorance. The character in the song who uses the word “faggot” is portrayed as an ignorant layman. Knopfler uses this context to take the conceived power away from the word. There have been gay artists, most notably Elton John, who have understood this and even performed the song themselves.
You can’t ban a song just because someone doesn’t understand it. You can’t say “I don’t understand this song, but it has a bad word so I don’t want to hear it anymore.” To ban this song outright is to encourage ignorance. It’s like saying “it’s ok, keep on being ignorant. We’ll protect from all these bad scary words.” If you ban the original version of the song, you’re depriving listeners of the message the artist wanted to deliver.
-
This is a brutal ruling by the CBSC. Censorship at its worst. You folks at Corus radio and other broadcasters ought to look at your governance and throw incompetants like Cohen and his cronies out.This insidious PC in this country is not wanted by the people. Cohen and the CBSC are playing as you say the nanny here. If you broadcasters won’t stand up for your rights against this evil madness then all I can say is bring on internet radio where such paternalistic crap has less control. This song in its original form will always live on in my mind. Had Cohen and those imbeciles at the CBSC actually listened to the context of the song’s lyrics they would have realized the subject of Knopler’s song was a redneck appliance store worker spouting off at a somewhat gay looking performer airing on MTV. The fact that they take one overly sensitive person’s complaint and bring airing of the original song to a screeching halt is unbelievable. You broadcasters need to do some serious soul searching and decide whether or not you want to submit to this overzealous board. They are completely out of touch with a large majority of people in this country. But then consulting with others does not appear to be something they feel is necessary because they know what is best for everybody. Indeed!
-
well this subject seems to be getting a lot of attention and goes to show how a minority can overrule the moral majority
blame on our bleeding heart beurocrats that gave them rights in the first place and is bringing our society to a cess pit of imortality -
To complain about this attack on free speech contact:-mail Ronald Cohen at ron.cohen@cbsc.ca
I sent him the following:Dear Mr. Cohen:
When I first heard of the CBSC ruling banning the song”Money for Nothing” from Canadian radio airplay I thought this was a planted prank news story. My disbelief turned to a sick feeling in my stomach at an other blow against free speech. The song is completely innocuous as any scholar familiar with the English language will publicly state. The word though offensive sometimes as used certainly is not used as such in this case.Many rap songs commonly use the “n” word and receive frequent play. That is that “n” word which some revisionists plan to remove from one of the greatest works in English literature depicting the lives of Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer. Should parts of the world greatest painted and sculpted masterpieces be also edited with genitals covered or removed in your mind?. What if one was to use “faggot” or for that matter “Biblethumper” in a violent context depicting oppression of the character referenced? What about the many songs referencing glories of illicit drugs and violent sex?. Do you have a list of songs to edit? Do you plan to ban any and all use of that “N” word? Do you believe in removing references to “Christmas”? making mailman and fisherman mailpersons and fisherpeople? Why even a former Canadian Prime Minister gave us “fuddle duddle!” -
This is political correctness gone way too far. This is unreal, we cannot just start banning stuff because its offensive to an incredibly small group of people.
I know for a fact that people find violence offensive, along with any sort of nudity. So why are these things not banned completely from public. Why aren’t great works of art in Italy covered up or destroyed?
This is just absolutely ridiculous, and anything can be found offensive if you allow it to be. A line must be drawn, because this is simply too far.
-
I can remember a few years ago when Tennessey Ernie Ford came out with a hit on the radio called “16 tons”. At the end of the song, he ends up quoting a plaque on the entrance to the mine as saying ” at the bottom of this pit, lies one hell of a man”. They cencored the record to say, “one big, big man”. “Hell” was too offensive to someone, so they had to elinimate it. now, you can find it used in TV, comic books, newspapers etc. We didn’t all go to hell from hearing or speaking that word after all.
-
We are guilty of wanting a following and the nature of the internet and social networks enable a following. I think a censor board has to remember that a complaint has to be seen from that perspective. The idea of speaking out against bigotry or homophobia is ok but to punish an artist for an ego based call to action happens far too much. Intolerance for the use of the word “faggot” in a rock culture where nothing is sacred and counter-culture is revered is borderline treason. OK I might be exaggerating a little to get a following.
-
at that time, they were actually playing music videos. No silly moderators, carppy game and dating shows and no ringtone-ads.
well theses days are long gone…
Leave a Comment
Disclaimer: Comments submitted to this sites posts are moderated and will be posted to the website once they are deemed to be suitable.
- Send me your sounds
-
Send us your songs! We could feature it in our podcast or website. 
