Money for Nothing banned in Canada

I guess Canada's also gonna have to ban all that hip-hop that treats women like thrash...

stonebeard wrote: Canada needs it's controversy too, eh?

Doesn't that happen whenever they let Michael Moore into the country?

I am a gay man and I was in my early teens when this song was popular. Thanks to inescapable airplay on radio and  MTV it was difficult to avoid.  I don't remember the F word being censored then (on "liberal"-minded MTV this seems incredulous now.) I loved this song, enough so that I purchased the entire cassette (Brothers In Arms) and became a fan of the band (at least for that one album).

In my early teens I wasn't fully cognizant of what being gay meant, just knew I was a bit different than the other boys my age. I knew that f***** meant something bad, but because of my own lack of full awareness about myself it didn't register on a personal level. Hearing those lyrics now, with full acceptance of who I am, sounds so much different than they did as a kid.  Offensive? Sure. I don't like being called a f*****, even if its by another gay person. In the context of "Money for Nothing" it drains some of the enjoyment I used to get out of the song. I know the lyrics are based on the kind of "good-ol'-boy" conversations shared between like-minded individuals without indoctrination into "political correctness", but even still it feels like a direct sting. (Sting? Pun intended!)

Should it be banned? No, and neither should ""Huckleberry Finn".  These works are what they are, warts and all. Let's use these examples as touchstones to discuss bigger issues. 

Since there is absolutely nothing any person can say that won't offend someone, it follows that eventually all music will be banned a la Joe's Garage.

Hanyou wrote: What I read was that this was a decision by the broadcast council, which is, I guess, a private organization?  If their decisions are not backed by government force, then I don't see the big deal.   As I understand it, stations voluntarily sign on to this broadcast council.  People are quick to cry "censorship" regardless of who's making the decision to censor, but it's not all the same.  This does not sound like government censorship, in which case it's much ado about nothing.

Censoring art is almost always wrong, regardless of who is doing it. That's not to say a private organization can not decide what to play on it's airwaves, but that doesn't make bowing to pressure to have a song banned because it has a "bad word" the right decision

Hanyou wrote: Same thing with the "n****r" controvert in that new edition of Huck Finn, though that has a slightly better reasoning (the fault is still on school boards and uptight conservatives who want to control words their kids probably won't even read because they're too busy sexting and having unprotected sex at 12 because of the failure of abstinence-only sex ed programs) You think the Huck Finn controversy is conservatives' fault?  And how on earth does this tie into abstinence-only education?  Your caricature is funny, but unfair, and seems completely unrelated to the issue at hand.

Huck Finn is often not taught in schools because of the "language" in most versions (re: "n****r"). The "PC" version of the book would not even have a reason to exist if it weren't just to get it in public schools (which is the publisher's desire). So, the b*****dization that is this pressing is a result of pressure from school boards and parents to get books with "bad words," among other things, out of the school curriculum.

Now you're going to make me explain the rest of it? Geez. OK fine. The last part is meant to highlight the misguided and woefully backward thinking of censors in this case. Their goal is to shield children from bad language and sexual situations (and witchcraft, in some cases. lol) in the books in the curriculum, all the while the kids are most likely doing much, much worse stuff outside of class. The abstinence-only bit plays into the fear of parents that if their kids learn about sex, they'll do it. which just goes to show that parents are blind and out of touch. People have sex. It is one of the most basic things. Once hormones kick in, sex.

All this is born out of a conservative social mindset, which I often rail against, because on many issues, it is very, very dumb, and often imposes bad science, fear tactics, and half-truths in hopes of attaining some sort of moral society.

At least it was funny, as you say. it was supposed to be a rant, not a philosophical thesis.


Edited by stonebeard - January 18 2011 at 18:15

Stupid.  The words are spoken by a third person (The furniture mover) to demonstrate his ignorance (He thinks someone is gay cos they wear an earing).  Why should music be treated differently than other arts.  I can't imagine if this was a play they would ban it! 

I assume that The Wall is banned in Canada too?

Quick blurb from wiki:

Padraic wrote: Ah, I think I've pieced this together.  My wager is that LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender)-aligned groups have lobbied the Canadian government to "ban" (from radio broadcast?  Can't imagine the Mounties knocking on doors and confiscating albums) this song, because it contains the word "fa****".

Same craps makes me angry with the Pogues song "Fairytale of New York."

Same thing with the "n****r" controvert in that new edition of Huck Finn, though that has a slightly better reasoning (the fault is still on school boards and uptight conservatives who want to control words their kids probably won't even read because they're too busy sexting and having unprotected sex at 12 because of the failure of abstinence-only sex ed programs)

Censorship makes me very angry. I would probably have had an amateurism at my age if I was cognizant when the PMRC was sh*tting up album covers and hauling in Rob Halford to testify that his lyrics weren't causing kids to kill themselves.

God, I dread I'll become a bitter old bitch like all of them. Gotta stay young and socially liberal, somehow.

Apparently progarchives has banned this word as well!