‘Money for Nothing’ too offensive for Canada

Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has

‘Money for Nothing' too offensive for Canada

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has ruled that Dire Straits' 1980s hit Money for Nothing is too offensive for Canadian radio.

The ruling, released Wednesday, was in response to a complaint against St. John's radio station CHOZ-FM. The listener complained that the word faggot – which appears three times in the song is “extremely offensive” to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

The council is an independent body created by Canadian radio and television broadcasters to review the standards of their content.

The award-winning song was the first single off of Dire Straits' album Brothers in Arms and has been an international music staple for 25 years.

The council ruled that the song contravenes its ethics code which states: “broadcasters shall ensure that their programming contains no abusive or unduly discriminatory material or comment which is based on matters of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability.”

It ruled that “faggot,” when used to describe a homosexual, is “even if entirely or marginally acceptable in earlier days, is no longer so.”

Offending Lyrics from Money for Nothing, by Dire Straits:

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


Source:Hamilton (ON) Spectator
__



And it only took twenty-five years to reach this conclusion…

Hmmm

Personally I’d be very happy to never hear that song again

So The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council are censoring irony without even realising it. Hilarious.

the wheels move slow - only been 30 years…

They may not understand the actual politics of the song, but their hearts are in the right place. A fascinating bit to study is the 1992 “Butler” decision and applications of it. Really quite a mess, many instances of the same sort of problem as this.

So now every place is becoming the “Land of The Offended”…

Whatever happened to “Sticks and stones may break by bones, but names will never hurt me.” ??

That ruling is stupid. Period. (IMO of course.) :)

UJ

PS Not that I care… I’m with Teryeah… got tired of it after 30,456,987 plays…

What’s stupid about trying to get people not to use hate speech? The decision might be a mistake, yes, but…

I’m widjuh, Tom, but…

Quote: (TomS @ Jan. 13 2011, 3:32 PM)

What's stupid about trying to get people not to use hate speech?
The decision might be a mistake, yes, but...

"Offense" will only stop when people refuse to be offended.

Same with racism. Think about it.

You can't legislate morality... yada... yada...

UJ

Nah, that’s false, humans have “legislated morality” since the dawn of time. Not only do we pass laws to enforce moral views, the laws we pass actually have an effect in shaping those moral views. I’ve long wondered where that “you can’t legislate morality” idea came from. It’s so obviously false, but people still seem to believe, it, or at least say that they do, when mostly they don’t really. Any ideas?

No idea Tom. I believe there’s a bit of truth in it though.

Years ago, in another job, in another town, I worked and befriended a fellow. A better human being, I am unlikely to meet. Remember where I am? Deep south right? Im as white as a brand new Hanes T shirt and this fellow is as black as coal. We had many conversations about the nature of “offense” and racism. We never could really fathom WHY it is a problem other than neither “side” of the equation wanted it to end. Sort of a self propagating Borg if you will. I don’t understand it at all. I want people to ‘like’ me as I am and make every effort to be a giood chap… but if for whatever reason they don’t… meh… I still wish them no ill will. Lots of folk can’t do that for some reason?

Figure why that is and we might win a Nobel Prize?

UJ

PS Most people are irrational and stupid. That’s damn hard to “fix” IMO…

PPS Forgive the typos… I don’t get along well with touch screens…

Quote: (Unblown_Jonson @ Jan. 14 2011, 12:08 PM)

PPS Forgive the typos... I don't get along well with touch screens...

mE nritjEr
Quote: (TomS @ Jan. 14 2011, 11:00 AM)

Nah, that's false, humans have "legislated morality" since the dawn of time.

I'm no expert, but when has that ever stopped anyone having an opinion......

We seem to create laws to deal with situations within our cultures that we don't like. In in a sense we're trying to change the culture/morality via the law.

(Trying to use an example that won't get me in too deep). I've never met anyone say, "You know, now that the government have made it a legal requirement to wear a cycle hat on a bike I see that they are right and have changed my point of view". I don't see evidence of laws changing cultures.

BUT, if the culture was "it's good for me to wear a cycle helmet, and I don't want to waste the emergency services and hospitals time if I land on my head, and I don't want my loved ones to go through the pain of me being brain damaged", then we'd all wear cycle hats and the the law would not be necessary.

(Then when my friend with a turban doesn't wear one it doesn't turn into a big race/politics/religion issue).

the more richer people get the more civlised they think they are & the more detached from real life they get & the more they lose sight of common sense & the more time they have to spend worrying about silly things
if people are worrying where the next meals coming from & how to keep warm from they dont have time for nonsense

Yeah, good old Maslow. You’re right.

The wealthier we get as a society, the more we can concentrate on the top stuff in M’s pyramid, which is where the action is.

I dunno, Mark, attitudes about race have changed enormously in my lifetime. Laws have an empirically demonstrable effect on social attitudes. I don’t think a change in the law will change my mind, I’m old and set in my ways, but those who grow up with it will certainly have internalized the values in it to a greater degree. Think about changes in the laws concerning sex, drugs, and sex, for example. My kids are massively more tolerant and less bigoted than I am, and I’m waaay ahead of my parents, etc. Not all of that is due to changes in the laws, but some of it is.

E.g., think about what happened when we changed the laws segregating the military. Or the laws concerning contraception. I dunno, I just seems so obvious to me. :) (No offense, friends all.)

If I had to describe the process accurately, I’d have to say that it is dialectical - the laws influence attitudes which influence the law which…well, that sort of thing.

Quote: (bright lights tonight @ Jan. 13 2011, 5:44 PM)

the more richer people get the more civlised they think they are & the more detached from real life they get & the more they lose sight of common sense & the more time they have to spend worrying about silly things
if people are worrying where the next meals coming from & how to keep warm from they dont have time for nonsense

There's truth in that Tina. :agree:

My wife and I are doing alright for ourselves... BUT... we haven't forgotten the less than ideal beginnings from whence we came. (Geez I love that woman!) :)

She doesn't have to have 400 buck purses and 200 dollar shoes etc... Shoot... I wear shoes/boots that are older than my kids! LOL... oldest turns 21 in May.

"Don't let possessions possess YOU!" has been our mantra... As I was telling another fellow, it's a shame thousands (or millions?) of Americans can't seem to "get" that. Perhaps the economy wouldn't SUCK so bad now-a-days...

"Keep up with the Joneses?" Screw that... they're in so deep they'll never see daylight...

UJ
Quote: (TomS @ Jan. 13 2011, 6:54 PM)

(No offense, friends all.)

I done told yun's Thomas! You can't offend the un-offendable. :laugh: :agree:

UJ