• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Dire Straits Censored! What?!?!

michael_atw
"I'm not really sure what you're getting at."

We've turned into a society that gets little sound bites of information that come with a commentary and conclusion just before a TV commercial tells us we need to see that news in 3D and hear that commentary in Hi Def.
We weren't better or worse off 25-years ago when Dire Straits released that song but we were more secure about ourselves and less afraid of what some thing might or might not mean.
That's all I was saying.

Being more secure about it doesn't make it better. Just because people were more secure with using words like n_____ or f_____ didn't justify their usage. I'm glad they make people more uncomfortable these days. I'm not saying this particular song should be censored, but I'm glad they make people uncomfortable because that's the way it should be. At some point in history, every derogatory term was deemed comfortably acceptable...but does that mean it was correct? 25 years ago, the 'mainstrem' view on homosexuality was radically different than it is now..and our lingo can and will reflect that. Over time, there obviously has been outcry because apparently the verse has been removed AND the word has been changed in later versions over the years. So I'd assume this isn't the first time and definitely won't be the last time it gets censored. I'd say, if anything...we censor less of this stuff than what was censored back then.
 
michael_ltw"I'd say, if anything...we censor less of this stuff than what was censored back then."

On the contrary, I think we pre-censor more now than we ever did before. ..... Between lawyers and religious groups picking through thoughts and meanings it has changed society not for the better.

25-years ago Money For Nothing was about a conversation Mark Knofler overheard two appliance movers have while he was in buying a fridge. ..... I knew that then and never thought Mark was homophobic.
Now 25-years later one member of GLBT hears the original version of the song on a little radio station in Newfoundland and complains to the CBSC and gets, just the original, song pulled fro CDN airwaves. ......
On TV, Family Guy, comes with a Disclaimer. .... 25-years ago nothing came with a disclaimer we just assumed people would know the difference from mock parody and real life. .......
The dumbing down of society has made disclaimers almost mandatory on everything we hear and see.

Now, since you've decided to attack my point of view, which I have every right to make whether you get it or not, only goes to show the absurdness of this debate about a 25-year old song taken out of contents. You seem to want to change my thoughts because YOU don't agree with them only because you don't understand them and think they are wrong.
Worry about your own thoughts and not mine.

It'll be a sad day when everything we do, think and say comes with a warning disclaimer just because some people don't get it.
 
And yet the "N" word is still acceptable in (c)rap...

Right , and you can't call me a nazi punk, only I can.

"N" word is still a loaded gun, one that should be respected. I was in slight disagreemnt with folks when they censored ****** out of Mark Twain's works recently.

Sometimes we need a 2X4 upside the forehead to remember how assbackwards things were, and how far we still have to go before we can really call all of ourselves human beings, living on the same piece of dirt.

For those non US, our U.S. Constitution, which many of us beleive is quite a Supreme document, was trashed soon after it was adopted by slavery. Those souls were not considered human beings apparently. So the U.S. Constitution withstood that anomoly for near ahundred years before the whole country blew up in civil war over it. So, here in America, imho, we should allow the word ****** in press, in the right context, to remind us of how much that word, that concept, cost this country in the past.

Plus, here we adhere to the primacy of freedom of speech. Its not all good though, that means you have to put up with things that might bother you. Its the nature of an open society. So, SUCK IT UP!

BTW, if gay citizens had the same marrying rights as everyone lse here in USA, maybe they'd not be so hung up on trivial jibes anymore!

OK bordering in politics here so.......

Peace . out.
 
This ruling is not at all surprising. The broadcast commission, however, is not a federal gov't agency, but rather a coalition of broadcasters. That said, I can see their paranoia about offending anyone.

Regrettably free speech has been under siege here in Canada for decades now. Google "section 13" and "CHRC" (no, not a radio station, the Canadian Human Rights Commission) to see how our historic liberties have been stripped from us in the name of "sensitivity."

A recent ruling by a tribunal found section 13 (which covers so-called "hate speech") unconstitutional. It was found in conflict with section 2 of the charter, which guarantees freedom of expression.

As a tribunal is not a court, this decision is not enough to overturn the law. At present, it is in something of a legal no-man's land, with the CHRC not pursuing further convictions, but the law is still on the books. Hopefully we'll get a court decision soon.

I'd say more, but as a Canadian I'm apparently not allowed to.

I'd just like to add a piece of advice for my American friends : hold on to that freedom to speak.

Once you lose it, it is mighty hard to get it back.

GT
 
The trouble with censorship, is that the people who do the actual censorship tend to be so literal minded, that they don't understand simple literary concepts like allegory and satire.

Even back in the day, Randy Newman used to get in huge trouble for writing satirical songs from a first-person perspective. When he was mocking racial bigotry, he'd use the voice of an ignorant Southern racist to point out Northern hypocracy and complacency, or if he was sending up our insecurities about body image, he'd write something like "Short People".

I always enjoyed his tongue in cheek humour, even when he mocked my religious views or used the "N" word, because I knew he was joking. Nowadays, he wouldn't just get in trouble- the killjoys would probably shoot him.
 
25-years ago nothing came with a disclaimer we just assumed people would know the difference from mock parody and real life. .......
The dumbing down of society has made disclaimers almost mandatory on everything we hear and see.it.

Dumbing down of society? If anything, the dumbest people I know are the ones that can't tell the difference between satire and non-satire. However, I see far less younger people who are "dumbed down" than I see older people who lived in the Dire Straits generation. My parents have zero idea what satire even is. A generation ago disclaimers didn't come with media not because people were somehow more creative satirical geniuses or something, it had to do with the fact that media was highly censored during the days of I Love Lucy, The Brady Bunch, and all the way up to the 80's (when it rapidly started to change). The media is not more censored, it is far less regulated these days which is obvious by the amount of violence, sex, and language which is prevalent in music, movies, and television. That's why there are so many people who have disdain for rap, South Park, American Pie movies, etc. The only reason it seems more censored is because of random incidents like this song. But of course, I am an American and this all applies in the American sense. I can't speak for Canada but I am aware they are much more 'liberal' about their regulation.

Besides, I bet this track has been censored either in part or in whole numerous times going all the way back to its initial release...so other than the location I'm sure this is nothing new for Dire Straits.
 
'"The panel concludes that, like other racially driven words in the English language, '******' is one that, even if entirely or marginally accepted in earlier days, is no longer so," [CBSC chair Ron] Cohen says in an official statement.'

That is a pretty funny quote I found about it. I guess '******' is racial now.
 
I think, for me, the big thing is the word, or words, when broadcast over the air waves to unsuspecting listeners. In the US, you can't say a lot of words, I'm talking DJs and others, for this reason. Is this too much censorship? I say no, considering I have my kids in the car.

Now, if it comes to buying the cd, and there's a warning label on it, the choice to be exposed now becomes the purchaser's. Again, all ok here.

I don't harken back to the "good old days" when you could say what you wanted (you couldn't, Ricky and Lucy didn't even sleep in the same bed in early episodes), because for many, those good old days weren't such. Not if you were black in the south in 1955, or gay, or Catholic, or Jewish. People tend to have a glowing memory of days gone by, but my opinion is that this is largely a distortion.
 
'"The panel concludes that, like other racially driven words in the English language, '******' is one that, even if entirely or marginally accepted in earlier days, is no longer so," [CBSC chair Ron] Cohen says in an official statement.'

That is a pretty funny quote I found about it. I guess '******' is racial now.


You're being racist against Canadians.

:hiding: