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

[PzR Slim]

Ignorant?

About some things I'm sure but I have a good bit of life experience to back up what I think and feel.

I take it you've met every person who commited suicide to be able to throw a blanket over them all as 'weak' then?

If you had lived my life you'd agree with the "forum name" but for different reasons.

Perspective is the Mothers of All F....ers.

It was your opinions that led me to think that, your forum name was just an ironic afterthought.

You see how I can respond without bunching my panties up in a wad
and trying to get even with a bunch of labels cast about?
That is what freedom gives me and you if you choose it.

No panties in a wad here, just 'calling a spade a spade'

It really doesn't matter what you think of me to me but,
what I think apparently has such great importance
that you feel the need to put it down or stop it somehow.
You cannot.

No importance whatsoever, not trying to stop anything, just informing you of what I think of you. You would prefer the truth I assume.

Words by themselves only have power if you the listener gives it to them.

Is this such a dangerous idea that it needs to be put down?

What happens if someone isn't there to stop the bad man from saying bad things?
Does one have to stand there and listen or believe what is said nevermind act on them?

As the article I linked to from The Telegraph proves, very bad things can happen to entirely innocent people 'if someone isn't there to stop the bad man from saying bad things'.

You have the freedom/choice to be or not be offended but you do not have the freedom to decide what I think or say.

I never told you what to think or say. I explained that I thought you were unintelligent and ignorant for holding the opinions you do.

I'll keep make my own choices on calling a spade a spade and accept the social consequences of doing so, thanks.

Point out where I said you couldn't.

As soon as you impliment a law such as you can't say this or that
you lose some or even more freedoms yourself that you didn't intend.

However, the small inconvenience that you or I might feel as a result of not being able to say exactly what we like just might save a few peoples lives. I know which world I'd rather live in and it's obvious which you would rahter live in.

 

[Famine]

No, they shouldn't have the right to say what they are doing, just like Neo-Nazis shouldn't be allowed to do hate speeches and things like that. As longs as you say and do things just to "hurt" a certain group of people it shouldn't be allowed.

I feel hurt by you stating the concept that I shouldn't be allowed to say whatever I wish should I choose to. Thus under the rules of not being allowed to say anything that hurts someone, you're not allowed to say that people shouldn't be allowed to say anything that hurts someone.

 

[OG_Wretch]

Not going to respond point by point to the obtuse but I will agree that Fiero has a point.

I'll keep being who I am freely over here and you can continue to live as you see fit over there.

I'll remember to say a kind word every now and again so someone might be saved. 💡

Okay, I lied, I will address the one about blanket sentiment and suicide practitioners.

We all feel the same four feelings.
Mad, Sad, Glad or Scared all the rest of the so called Emotions
(A memory of a past feeling)
are a combination or compilation of the four feelings mentioned.
Yes we may get to those feelings by different paths but they all feel the same to everyone...
...unless we aren't really equal which brings up a whole new set of questions.

Anyway, so we all feel the same feelings and have the choice of how to react to them.
If we don't have a choice then that person should have a keeper to take care of them
and protect them of the harsh realities of Life which could push them over "the edge".

If this isn't my kin, then why saddle me with their care and protection
which I would gladly do if they were mine?
That is my job as a parent already along with teaching my child how to cope with the actions and words of others.

So, the bottom line is that Sad, Scared and/or Angry people sometimes kill themselves when they cannot face reality in a constructive way.

What part of that is not weakness or maybe better said "controlling"?
So maybe they are control freaks who reach out to change the situation the only way they can?
Nope, that would be weakness too in that they can't face up to whatever has them down.
Running away is not strength.

Your turn.

 

[BlacqueJacques]

There is an edited version that gets played on the ol radio!

Having never been a fan of 80's Glam Rock; I know the f word was used by my buds to put down those rockers with the makeup and earrings (no one in Deep Purple wore earrings was our thinking.

So I think in the song it's use was meant to be derogatory to glam 'rock' stars; no musical skill-just makeup and flash-hence getting money for nothing.

Times change; now songs sing of 'slappin ho's'

 

[PzR Slim]

Not going to respond point by point to the obtuse but I will agree that Fiero has a point.

I'll keep being who I am freely over here and you can continue to live as you see fit over there.

I'll remember to say a kind word every now and again so someone might be saved. 💡

Okay, I lied, I will address the one about blanket sentiment and suicide practitioners.

We all feel the same four feelings.
Mad, Sad, Glad or Scared all the rest of the so called Emotions
(A memory of a past feeling)
are a combination or compilation of the four feelings mentioned.
Yes we may get to those feelings by different paths but they all feel the same to everyone...
...unless we aren't really equal which brings up a whole new set of questions.

Anyway, so we all feel the same feelings and have the choice of how to react to them.
If we don't have a choice then that person should have a keeper to take care of them
and protect them of the harsh realities of Life which could push them over "the edge".

If this isn't my kin, then why saddle me with their care and protection
which I would gladly do if they were mine?
That is my job as a parent already along with teaching my child how to cope with the actions and words of others.

So, the bottom line is that Sad, Scared and/or Angry people sometimes kill themselves when they cannot face reality in a constructive way.

What part of that is not weakness or maybe better said "controlling"?
So maybe they are control freaks who reach out to change the situation the only way they can?
Nope, that would be weakness too in that they can't face up to whatever has them down.
Running away is not strength.

Your turn.

I see the point just before suicide for many people as a moment of complete and utter despair not weakness. Your free to think whatever you want as I am to express what I think of your opinions. You carry on.

 

[OG_Wretch]

I see the point just before suicide for many people as a moment of complete and utter despair not weakness. Your free to think whatever you want as I am to express what I think of your opinions. You carry on.

Utter Despair aka Very Sad or Very Sad and Angry or Very Sad Angry and Scared.
About what? The perceived bleak or just plain old unknown future.

Not strong enough to hang around to see if it gets or even try to make it better = Weak.

Not necessarily a judgement of the dead but more a statement of fact.

 

[blaaah]

Not going to respond point by point to the obtuse but I will agree that Fiero has a point.

I'll keep being who I am freely over here and you can continue to live as you see fit over there.

I'll remember to say a kind word every now and again so someone might be saved. 💡

Okay, I lied, I will address the one about blanket sentiment and suicide practitioners.

We all feel the same four feelings.
Mad, Sad, Glad or Scared all the rest of the so called Emotions
(A memory of a past feeling)
are a combination or compilation of the four feelings mentioned.
Yes we may get to those feelings by different paths but they all feel the same to everyone...
...unless we aren't really equal which brings up a whole new set of questions.

Anyway, so we all feel the same feelings and have the choice of how to react to them.
If we don't have a choice then that person should have a keeper to take care of them
and protect them of the harsh realities of Life which could push them over "the edge".

If this isn't my kin, then why saddle me with their care and protection
which I would gladly do if they were mine?
That is my job as a parent already along with teaching my child how to cope with the actions and words of others.

So, the bottom line is that Sad, Scared and/or Angry people sometimes kill themselves when they cannot face reality in a constructive way.

What part of that is not weakness or maybe better said "controlling"?
So maybe they are control freaks who reach out to change the situation the only way they can?
Nope, that would be weakness too in that they can't face up to whatever has them down.
Running away is not strength.

Your turn.

Humans evolved empathy to make them stronger as a species.
Empathy can help the weak be strong again, it creates social bonds which are vital, and it identifies and actions against the dangers that effected the weakness in others.

Not caring is a valid alternative as it can allow for some dominance and control of resources, but i think it is dramatically a less successful trait in nature.

So stronger forces of selection to have a society with weak people and those who care for them than a society that only favours the strong and where is little capacity for care.

 

[PzR Slim]

Utter Despair aka Very Sad or Very Sad and Angry or Very Sad Angry and Scared.
About what? The perceived bleak or just plain old unknown future.

Not strong enough to hang around to see if it gets or even try to make it better = Weak.

Not necessarily a judgement of the dead but more a statement of fact.

Maybe the person committing suicide had spent the past 30 years being strong hoping and wanting things to improve. The utter despair comes from the 30 years of it not getting any better. I don't see the word in as black and White a manner as you.

 

[OG_Wretch]

Maybe the person committing suicide had spent the past 30 years being strong hoping and wanting things to improve. The utter despair comes from the 30 years of it not getting any better. I don't see the word in as black and White a manner as you.

You did that to make snot fly from my nose didn't you?

So giving up after a mere 30 years of stiff upper lip is a strength?

 

[PzR Slim]

You did that to make snot fly from my nose didn't you?

So giving up after a mere 30 years of stiff upper lip is a strength?

I didn't say it was a strength but I don't see it as weakness either. I see it as a situation I wouldn't wish on anyone.

 

[OG_Wretch]

Nice an safe on the fence isn't it? lol

 

[PzR Slim]

Nice an safe on the fence isn't it? lol

What fence? I'm firmly in the camp that says not all people who commit suicide are weak.

 

[OG_Wretch]

What fence? I'm firmly in the camp that says not all people who commit suicide are weak.

What are they then if not weak?

 

[PzR Slim]

What are they then if not weak?

Sad, unfortunate, stupid, disturbed, despairing, and a thousand other things besides, and yes some even weak. However, I wouldn't be so presumptuous to say they were all one of those things.

 

[OG_Wretch]

Sad, unfortunate, stupid, disturbed, despairing, and a thousand other things besides, and yes some even weak. However, I wouldn't be so presumptuous to say they were all one of those things.

All of those things, some being the same, lead up to that moment of weakness where they end it all.
Factors yes but not the last thing they were before being dead.

 

[PzR Slim]

All of those things, some being the same, lead up to that moment of weakness where they end it all.
Factors yes but not the last thing they were before being dead.

Well that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Don't expect the vast majority to agree with it but do expect people to call you ignorant for holding such an opinion.

 

[OG_Wretch]

Well that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Don't expect the vast majority to agree with it but do expect people to call you ignorant for holding such an opinion.

They can call me anything they like unless doing such a thing becomes banned.

Names and labels have never changed who I am and likely never will.

As far as my opinion, it was come by the hard way and has held true ever since I came to it.

Will some people say stupid stuff to weak people who can't cope and kill themselves over said words?
Sure and no amount of laws or banning will stop that either.
Is it right that they say such to those too weak to cope?
In a word, No.
I'd be the first to say so to them as well and probably offer words of encouragement to the "victim"...
...like where the nearest bridge is or who has rope on sale.

But seriously, people are going to do and say whatever they like no matter the rules or punishment.
Banning certain language is just silly as does nothing but trade who's feelings get hurt.
It solves nothing and only escalates said bad/hurt feelings.

 

[Biggles]

Again, as Blaques Jacques & I have pointed out: the CSBC (Canadian Broadcast Standards Council) are not banning the song, but asking radio stations to edit out the word, in the same way that US broadcasters edit content. Personally, I think it is it is asinine even to edit the song, especially considering the artistic intent of the song's lyrics which is NOT to defame homosexuals. Judging by the reactions of the vast majority of Canadians, the CSBC regulators have overstepped their mandate & this may produce a signifcant backlash.

There is clearly a difference of opinion between European countries & the United States about the absolute sanctity of "freedom of speech". The horrific example of the Second World War, which led to the slaughter of millions of civilians in Europe, an experience not shared by the United States, has suggested that there may be values more important than "freedom of speech".

 

[OG_Wretch]

You should dig up my Uncle and tell him he didn't share in WWII or the .30 caliber machinegun
round he carried on his pulmary arch for 20 years until they could remove it in 1964.

Or my CVSO friend who was shot down in the Pacific and spent the rest of the War in a Japanese POW camp.

I'll hold the list there but rest assured we know well first hand the examples that were set in WWII.

Good thing Lord Chamberlin was on the job or the War might have ended before it began.

 

[FoolKiller]

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.

Yes, no laws against speech would be preferable, always. Laws limiting the freedom of expression are the closest thing the government can attempt to control thought. If someone wants to prevent you from speaking your opinion it means they want to control your opinion and the opinions of those around you.

Opinionated speech is merely the vocal expression of thought. You want to put limits on that.

Also, it could have been in response to a past event that caused great harm to the homosexual community or individual (suicide possibly?).

Which would make it even worse, as not only is it limiting the freedom of expression of individuals, but it is doing it as a knee-jerk reaction to a one-time event that was taken advantage of by politicians. Disgusting. Just like the political reactions surrounding the Tucson shooting.

I find it disgusting how people here are trying to "defend" their so called "freedom of speech".

I find it disgusting that you want to say the government is allowed to limit the expression of the people.

If you use hate speech, because someone is gay or because someone is black, or yes, because he is a fat white teenager, you always want to harm/offend that person or group of people, which is something that shouldn't be allowed. You are not allowed to hurt someone physical and you shouldn't be allowed to hurt someone psychical.

So, hate speech should be illegal because it means you are expressing a desire to do something illegal? The act that is the problem is already illegal. Why further restrictions to the point of restricting something that does not infringe on someone's rights?

There are way too many people who take them seriously, that's why their organizations are so big.

Must explain why the Westboro Baptist Church has about 30 members, mostly all relatives. That traveling all over the country, spreading their messages of hate has really bolstered their numbers. All those KKK marches has made their membership swell from as many as 5 million in the 1920s to an estimated whopping 5,000 today.

I don't know how it is in Canada and the USA, but if you offend someone in the public in Germany he, or she, can press charges against you (although "slut" might not be enough). I think that's a good thing because if you offend me, I should always have the right to defend myself against that, just like this very forum here won't allow you to offend other users.

Wait, so you actually have a legal right to not be offended? Wow.

Reduced freedom of expression traded for freedom to not be offended...I just...wow.

EDIT: Again, don't get me wrong, censoring "Money for Nothing" is ridiculous, but you cannot defend everything with "freedom of speech".

You can defend expression of thought with it though. You seem to be trying to say that somehow speech is defending something more. It is not.

Ever heard of Auschwitz, Sobibor, Treblinka? Nazi hate speech led to the murder of millions of people becasue the public bought into the rhetoric.

While any opposing speech was outlawed. When you jail or kill those that don't buy into the rhetoric it is easy to rule by popular vote.

Whilst freedom of speech is an ideal, if that freedom leads to hatred, violence or murder then it is unacceptable.

I can think of a few instances where freedom of speech (actually violation of laws limiting speech) led to the end of oppression.

 

[AClockworkGrape]

They can call me anything they like unless doing such a thing becomes banned.

Names and labels have never changed who I am and likely never will.

As far as my opinion, it was come by the hard way and has held true ever since I came to it.

Will some people say stupid stuff to weak people who can't cope and kill themselves over said words?
Sure and no amount of laws or banning will stop that either.
Is it right that they say such to those too weak to cope?
In a word, No.
I'd be the first to say so to them as well and probably offer words of encouragement to the "victim"...
...like where the nearest bridge is or who has rope on sale.

But seriously, people are going to do and say whatever they like no matter the rules or punishment.
Banning certain language is just silly as does nothing but trade who's feelings get hurt.
It solves nothing and only escalates said bad/hurt feelings.

Wow, that post was just... wrong. I'm not offended, well I am, by your lack of intelligence.

If someone wants to cling to their free speech card and bully the weak, then I should have the right to kick their ass. Unfortunately I don't.

@Fool As of now, I'm not aware of any legislation that has passed in light of the Tucson shooting, other than the funeral is private space thing.. which is a great law imo..

Also, the WBC garners money off of their "freedom of speech", by antagonizing victims, the general public, etc. Then suing when their rights are taken away. Why do you think so many lawyers are in it? It's a sick act, and should be illegal.

 

[OG_Wretch]

Wow, that post was just... wrong. I'm not offended, well I am, by your lack of intelligence.

If someone wants to cling to their free speech card and bully the weak, then I should have the right to kick their ass. Unfortunately I don't.

@Fool As of now, I'm not aware of any legislation that has passed in light of the Tucson shooting, other than the funeral is private space thing.. which is a great law imo..

Also, the WBC garners money off of their "freedom of speech", by antagonizing victims, the general public, etc. Then suing when their rights are taken away. Why do you think so many lawyers are in it? It's a sick act, and should be illegal.

It's too bad I don't live up to your expectations, maybe not too bad but, I will hold up your right to voice that opinion until death.

WBC members and lawyers in general should just be killed as a matter of public service but
that pesky free speach promise must stand for them too if it is to stand for you.

I guess I just need to be strong enough to weather the harshness of life and consider the source
when listening to others to determine if they are a proper threat or merely another Don Quixote.

 

[Joel]

Whoa... Can we all just take this down a few notches?

 

[Biggles]

You should dig up my Uncle and tell him he didn't share in WWII or the .30 caliber machinegun
round he carried on his pulmary arch for 20 years until they could remove it in 1964.

Or my CVSO friend who was shot down in the Pacific and spent the rest of the War in a Japanese POW camp.

I'll hold the list there but rest assured we know well first hand the examples that were set in WWII.

Good thing Lord Chamberlin was on the job or the War might have ended before it began.

Of course many US serviceman were killed during the war, but it's a very different thing when your country is invaded, your cities are leveled & defenseless civilians - women & children - are killed. It puts a different perspective on issues of absolute free speech. Which is the only point I am trying to make.

I'm not sure what Chamberlain has to do with the topic?

 

[A2K78]

Why am I not suprised. I mean Canada have been cracking down on free speech in the same manner as the UK when it come to dissent in matters related to homosexuality for years now. Even here America we're now getting on that path due new found strenght of gay activist.

As for criticizing homosexuality, I personally believe that private radio stations and individuals(in this case artist) have the right to voice their opposition of homosexuality, even if the lyrics themselves are go the point call for the murder of homosexuals. Why I do have this view? to simpily put, I don't believe there should be NO LIMIT to free speech as speech is an inalienable right. Overall it quite a shame there have been calls by gay activit groups to ban the music of individuals such Buju Banton and many other reagge artist.

 

[A2K78]

No, they shouldn't have the right to say what they are doing, just like Neo-Nazis shouldn't be allowed to do hate speeches and things like that. As longs as you say and do things just to "hurt" a certain group of people it shouldn't be allowed.

I disagree with you on the notion that free speech should end calling for the injury of another, and I say this because free speech is free speech and you can't pick and choose what is acceptable speech.

As I have said, I don't believe there should be no limit to speech even if it include injurious speech.

 

[PzR Slim]

Why am I not suprised. I mean Canada have been cracking down on free speech in the same manner as the UK when it come to dissent in matters related to homosexuality for years now. Even here America we're now getting on that path due new found strenght of gay activist.

As for criticizing homosexuality, I personally believe that private radio stations and individuals(in this case artist) have the right to voice their opposition of homosexuality, even if the lyrics themselves are go the point call for the murder of homosexuals. Why I do have this view? to simpily put, I don't believe there should be NO LIMIT to free speech as speech is an inalienable right. Overall it quite a shame there have been calls by gay activit groups to ban the music of individuals such Buju Banton and many other reagge artist.

How would you feel if people called for those with a very poor grasp of written English to be murdered?

 

[OG_Wretch]

Of course many US serviceman were killed during the war, but it's a very different thing when your country is invaded, your cities are leveled & defenseless civilians - women & children - are killed. It puts a different perspective on issues of absolute free speech. Which is the only point I am trying to make.

I'm not sure what Chamberlain has to do with the topic?

What happened in Germany was about as far from "Free Speech" as one could get.
There is no absolute free speech since shouting Fire in a crowded theatre is still illegal as it should be.

Chamberlain was the one saying we should be nice to Germany because they had suffered so much already
and it could draw them into a war if they didn't try to appease them.
He took a position of weakness selling it as to spare the Germans suffering and heal the hard "feelings".
Feelings be damned, you do things because they are the right thing to do.

He should have called it like it was and stood up to begin with instead of worrying about the feelings of others.



Do you really think Europe alone holds the market on Loss due to "destruction"?
Is the Sadness of Loss any different between the causes of it?

Are you saying Europe has learned to cave into fear and hide from hard questions and words due to the threat of violence?

 

[PzR Slim]

Do you really think Europe alone holds the market on Loss due to "destruction"?
Is the Sadness of Loss any different between the causes of it?

Are you saying Europe has learned to cave into fear and hide from hard questions and words due to the threat of violence?

I think what he was suggesting was that although the US suffered great losses of its Armed Forces it's people did not suffer in the same way as the people of Europe suffered and therefore their two outlooks on life are quite different.

 

[OG_Wretch]

I think what he was suggesting was that although the US suffered great losses of its Armed Forces it's people did not suffer in the same way as the people of Europe suffered and therefore their two outlooks on life are quite different.

Yes, I get that he's saying Europeans have suffered moreso and therefore have a more valid claim on truth by virtue of their perspective...
...whereas Americans couldn't possibly understand that level of loss.

Pain is pain regardless if it's a broken arm or a hangnail.
It isn't pleasent either way and doesn't need to be compared to learn that fact.

This isn't a competition with whomever has suffered the most being the winner.

Maybe this will better illustrate; what is worse, being beaten with a wooden bat or an aluminum bat?

Suffering hurts.