Dire Straits song "Money For Nothing" Banned from Canadian Radio

[Joel]

The song "Money For Nothing" by Dire Straits has been banned from Canadian radio due to an anti gay slur (the other "F" word). I think it's really pretty pathetic that this gets banned from radio... Especially considering it's a 25 year old song.


The worst part about all of this, is that somebody actually complained about this, and somebody in power actually listened. Ridiculous.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-hit-from-canadian-radio-play/article1868052/


Canada has legislation against anti-gay "hate speech", which I think is total BS but whatever.

 

[OG_Wretch]

I'm offended that all these different groups of people are offended.
Can we just ban whinging over hurt feelings and be done with it?

 

[Joel]

It's counterproductive to give one group of people their own set of legislation. Should I be offended that there's no legislation against anti-fat white teenager slurs?

 

[Pyle_PMG]

Noob616, I completely agree. I don't complain about rap songs that I find offensive, I change the station. I believe the person who complained should be told to not complain ever again over something that dumb ever again. Its why radios feature a power button, and a tuning dial. It shows another reason why some countries laugh at us. I'm disgraced, cause that is a good song. If we censor this song, we need to get Barry Manalow off the radio because he offends my ears. I am also offended of people being offended and tired of having to be tired of this foolishness.

 

[AClockworkGrape]

I don't know about banning the song, but now-a-days the aforementioned word is censored, why didn't they just do that?

 

[G.T.Ace]

Canada has legislation against anti-gay "hate speech", which I think is total BS but whatever.

It's anything but BS.
Although banning that song is quite stupid, not only is it old, it could've been censored like most rap songs in the US too for example.

Didn't know about that part of the lyrics until now by the way.

 

[Joel]

It's anything but BS.
Although banning that song is quite stupid, not only is it old, it could've been censored like most rap songs in the US too for example.

Didn't know about that part of the lyrics until now by the way.

Why should just gays have protection from "hate speech"? Nobody else does...

 

[G.T.Ace]

So you would find it better if no one had a protection from hate speech?
What's so wrong about that? I agree that discrimination overall should be banned, but that also includes discrimination against gays.

You don't need radio nowadays anyway, especially for songs like that: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=money+for+nothing&aq=f

 

[Pyle_PMG]

I just don't see how people can be offended by this song, but again I don't understand much going on in the world nowdays anyway. Does the article say who complained? Or do they have to be protected from outraged classic rock music fans? It's pathetic.

 

[Joel]

So you would find it better if no one had a protection from hate speech?
What's so wrong about that? I agree that discrimination overall should be banned, but that also includes discrimination against gays.

You don't need radio nowadays anyway, especially for songs like that: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=money+for+nothing&aq=f

Yes.

And the point isn't that radio is almost obsolete (I still don't have youtube in the car though).

 

[OG_Wretch]

Being offended is a matter of choice.

Besides, I'd rather know how a person feels instead of having them do it in secret and repressed
so that it grows into even bigger unreasonable thought and they then act on it instead of working
toward tolerance for others but mostly for themselves.

Banning never solved anything and never will.
Addressing the real issues does and always will.

 

[blaaah]

I don't know about banning the song, but now-a-days the aforementioned word is censored, why didn't they just do that?

I think the creator of a work has the right to control how it is published/broadcast. They might insist on no editing or censoring or no rights to broadcast at all.
I agree with this sentiment if i wrote something I would never allow it to be altered.

 

[Pyle_PMG]

Banning never solves problems, it just diverts peoples attention. By banning something, you are making the problem worse. I could understand if its a new song, but you don't mess with something 25 years. It's along the lines of Huckleberry Finn, if you're offended by it I say ignore it.

 

[G.T.Ace]

Yes.

Why? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Note, I don't say banning this song was the right choice, but gays, black people, foreign people overall, handicapped people (hello) etc. all should be protected from hate speech (if it's really meant this way of course).

 

[AClockworkGrape]

I think the creator of a work has the right to control how it is published/broadcast. They might insist on no editing or censoring or no rights to broadcast at all.
I agree with this sentiment if i wrote something I would never allow it to be altered.

You have a point. Wouldn't be the greatest way to gain a fanbase, but then again who really listens to the radio anyway?

Also, to the OP hate speech should be banned in all forms within any censored public media (Basic cable, AM/FM radio)

 

[Joel]

Why? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Note, I don't say banning this song was the right choice, but gays, black people, foreign people overall, handicapped people (hello) etc. all should be protected from hate speech (if it's really meant this way of course).

What about fat middle class white kids?

 

[AClockworkGrape]

What about fat middle class white kids?

I've never heard hate speech over such classifications, so make my day?

Edit: Do you have a clue of what hate speech really is?

 

[Tornado]

Welcome to 1985 Canada, which was coincidentally the same time that everyone else decided to act offended about the song before forgetting about it and moving on to more important things.

And I know for a fact that there is a version of the song floating around with that entire verse removed anyways (one of the local radio stations plays it, while the other ones play the original version), so way to overreact as well.

I've never heard hate speech over such classifications, so make my day?

Edit: Do you have a clue of what hate speech really is?

*Raises Hand*
I do. Which is why the decision is even stupider than it normally would be.

 

[Pyle_PMG]

I think censoring is wrong in my opinion. Many times censoring makes problems worse (I.e., North Korea, China etc.) By censoring media, you are not able to get the message out of it.

 

[Joel]

I've never heard hate speech over such classifications, so make my day?

Edit: Do you have a clue of what hate speech really is?

Yes I uderstand what hate speech is, thanks. And my point is, why do some groups get protective legislation but not all? (although i think there should be none)

I think censoring is wrong in my opinion. Many times censoring makes problems worse (I.e., North Korea, China etc.) By censoring media, you are not able to get the message out of it.

This.

 

[OG_Wretch]

Yeah, here come the thought police.



You don't ban something you don't like without losing your own freewill yourself.

Take responsiblity for your own feelings and stop being offended.


You want the real haters to go into hiding and then strike from there once they stew enough?

Like I said before, I'd rather know how folks feel up front.

We had a saying when I was a kid and it worked just fine for us.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones
But words can never hurt me"

 

[AClockworkGrape]

Yes I uderstand what hate speech is, thanks. And my point is, why do some groups get protective legislation but not all? (although i think there should be none)





This.

There's a difference between news and music man. 👎👎

Granted, removing the song entirely is quite stupid, but whatever. I believe the reason gays get protective legislation in Canada is just how violent some of the speech can be (especially when you bring religion in it). Also, it could have been in response to a past event that caused great harm to the homosexual community or individual (suicide possibly?). Just speculating for you, legislation is never perfect.

@OG actually, words can damage a person's psychology imagine being called a derogatory term in a hateful way every day, it messes people up. Columbine is a great example.

 

[Pyle_PMG]

I agree, just because you are a minority shouldn't grant you special treatment. As a Canadian I have the right to freedom of speech, and my rights as a Canadian are being infringed.

 

[AClockworkGrape]

I agree, just because you are a minority shouldn't grant you special treatment. As a Canadian I have the right to freedom of speech, and my rights as a Canadian are being infringed.

This. Is. The. Greatest. Post. Ever.

 

[blaaah]

Hypothetical:
What if someone was to say "I hate black people, I hate white people, I hate everybody"
Does that make them racist/ a hate speech about a group?
What if a journalist selectively quoted them in a paper as saying "..I hate black people.."
And then this person was interviewed on TV asking "Did you say you hate black people?" and this person correctly says "Yes", but doesn't elaborate, why should they just to be seen to be correct in public? The public mind is so reactive and prejudicial, if you were to tell a reasonably intelligent robot or computer that you hated black people, the artificial electronic mind would not assume you only hated black people or you hated them because they were black. It's just 1 piece of information.
You could argue that if there is a law to prevent hatred of groups, then it can never be proven unless the law actually means you can't hate anybody at all.

 

[Pyle_PMG]

I don't see how it's the greatest post ever, I was agreeing with Noob616 because people should be able to think and say what they want.

 

[Tornado]

There's a difference between news and music man. 👎👎

There's a difference between hate speech and a single verse in a song, which, when taken in context with the rest of the lyrics, is so obviously not hate speech that the mere assertion that it was intended as hate speech in the first place would be ludicrous even if the song was written today.

Let alone the idea that the Canadian government thinks that it has the power to reach back a quarter of a century and retroactively label artistic work with terminology that is already questionable when applied to things created for the present.

 

[blaaah]

We had a saying when I was a kid and it worked just fine for us.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones
But words can never hurt me"

That saying was in my school when i was young, but it's the most stupidest saying I have ever known. All it means is that words can not physically cause trauma to the skin or internal organs. But they can cause you to commit suicide.
So i think children should be taught to say "Don't call me that i might kill myself, and you will end up in a court of law".
It doesn't rhyme, but i think it gets the point across.

 

[Joel]

I'll try to write more tomorrow, but I'm gonna go play GT5 now (insert fat white kid joke here).

 

[OG_Wretch]

That saying was in my school when i was young, but it's the most stupidest saying I have ever known. All it means is that words can not physically cause trauma to the skin or internal organs. But they can cause you to commit suicide.
So i think children should be taught to say "Don't call me that i might kill myself, and you will end up in a court of law".
It doesn't rhyme, but i think it gets the point across.

I'd buy them the rope as we have enough people already and the weak whingers are getting to be in the majority.

People who commit suicide do so by a choice that was already there.

If they don't have the foresight to see that it's a permanent solution to a temporary problem
then they'll never get it and would save themselves much suffering to go ahead and jump.