Diadem wrote:But that kind of reasoning is dangerous.
Not really, and
Diadem wrote:By the same logic you should ban...
also not really. If I employ the same logic, I should ban the word nigger from a reading of
Huckleberry Finn on daytime public, commercial radio
, whilst still allowing the uncensored version to be sold (in whatever format; book, audiobook, ebook, other radio stations that wish to preserve original lyrics) to those who wish to purchase it uncensored. And, like I said, commercial (rock/pop) music shouldn't be held to an identical standard, as
Felstaff wrote:radio-friendly [pop] music doesn't really have much of a case for defence when 'the language is needed for the context of the song'
whereas srs literature, film, art and poetry would make a stronger case than a pop song.
Huckleberry Finn without nigger would be taking a powerful word out where it has a context and a role and important meaning within the text. Taking the word faggot out of a popular song that can be enjoyed and listened to without the word included (indeed I never even noticed it contained the word) is different. I see where you're coming from though; 'censor all or censor none', but a case like this calls for a degree of rationality. I added the [pop] caveat, because a song like Money for Nothing
is different from, say, a protest song (generally radio unfriendly as they are), and should be treated as such. The word faggot does not add to the song in an artistic way*, and removing it detracts nothing from the song. No artistic merit is lost from its expungement.
It's no different to, say, a TV station censoring a swear-word on a pre-watershed showing of Alvin & The Chipmunks 2: The Squeakual
(there's a bit where Alvin grabs Theodore by the scruff of the neck and threatens to "fuckin' shank
the high-pitched cunt"). Had the word in the song been motherfucker, or crotch-pheasant, there would not have been as much hullabaloo, but as it's a newly problematic word, rather than an age-old taboo word, it's garnered much attention ("We Fear Change" /garthvoice).
May it be noted that the Canadian broadcasting standards agency don't want to censor the song itself, for if they did they would request that a new edition of the song is released, and all copies of the problematic version were removed from shelves/online stores. They merely requested
that radio stations take into account the problematic version, and amend it accordingly. Also the CBSA doesn't have any legal power to do so, but they do have a strong influential role, like nearly all "standards agencies" the world over.
Sometimes I find it problematic if I don't use the word problematic exactly five times in one post.
*theoretically it could, as in context, Knopfler wanted to recreate the language the man he heard critiquing "MTV bands" was using, and faggot appears to be a linchpin word of his speech. Had this been made clear within the song, so as not to be misunderstood, the case against radio censorship may have been a little stronger. Hell, they censored the phrase 'let's start a war, start a nuclear war' in Electric Six's Gay Bar
, which I found ridiculous. And 'I drank a fifth of vodka, you dare me to drive?' from Eminem's Stan
, which I consider much more lyrically artistic and appropriate for the song, for it was a ballad. That was MTV though, and not Canadian radio. Nope, the only dangerous reasoning I would say is if someone said 'we shouldn't let people have access to uncensored versions of the song', or perhaps if this were, like, 1920 and radio was the only viable method of hearing music for the masses.