|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 16, 2010 17:25:36 GMT -5
yup, I can ignore/get past the crassness and vulgarity because he has something important to say . . . makes you think and have an answer .
unfortunate [from my perspective] that religion is blamed [for lack of another word] for wars. mostly [notice I said mostly?] it isn't religion as much as someone invoking religion, or some religious festering . . . but the reason: land.
for example: the Irish conflict. it is seen as Protestant/Catholic, but really it was/is British/Irish homeland . . . it just so happens that the British are mostly Protestant and the Irish are mostly Catholic . . . so that's what is focussed on.
that is not to say that there aren't problems with institutional religion -- there are great problems and dangers as soon as dogma rules.People are the cause of wars, IMHO. Religion is just a convenient control tool and/or vehicle. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 16, 2010 21:57:20 GMT -5
Religeon, skin color, tribe, language, left vs right, sex, poverty, land: If there is no good reason, we can always find one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 17, 2010 1:49:39 GMT -5
that is not to say that there aren't problems with institutional religion -- there are great problems and dangers as soon as dogma rules. I can say with some certainlty that two atheist never get into a fight over religion. Just saying....  |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 14, 2011 7:41:41 GMT -5
Better late than never? Or the very definition of bureaucrats getting "money for nothing?" Censor Dire Straits song: broadcast panelThe 1980s song Money for Nothing by the British rock band Dire Straits has been deemed unacceptable for play on Canadian radio.
In a ruling released Wednesday, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council says the song contravenes the human rights clauses of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters' Code of Ethics and Equitable Portrayal Code.
The council is an independent, non-governmental group created to administer standards established by its members, Canada's private broadcasters. Its membership includes more than 700 private radio and TV stations across the country.
Last year, a listener to radio station CHOZ-FM in St. John's complained that the '80s rock song includes the word "faggot" in its lyrics and is discriminatory to gays.
The broadcaster argued that the song had been played countless times since its release decades ago and has won music industry awards.
A CBSC panel concluded that the word "faggot," even if once acceptable, has evolved to become unacceptable in most circumstances.
The panel noted that Money for Nothing would be acceptable for broadcast if suitably edited.I won't reprint the entire Mark Lepage column in today's Gazette, but I liked this paragraph: Words – they’re problematic. So many interpretations! And so many opportunities to leave in a huff. One man’s “I love the dead before they’re cold” is another’s “lady is a tramp.” The censoring of Money For Nothing for its use of a slur for gays, despite the obvious absence of any real attempt to injure that group, calls into question the meaning of another word: standard.
A standard would imply a judgment based on a set of feelings and opinions and moral codes, the latter two themselves based on consideration, understanding of context, and something we might call “wisdom.” The CBSC would respond that they were responding to a complaint – so let’s get it right, and rename them the Canadian Broadcast Reflex Council. One complaint by one person in Newfoundland, and someone in Victoria 7,300 kilometres away can’t hear a song on the radio. One letter, and one new judgment for 32 million people.
There are no real “standards” there at all – certainly none that are consistent, balanced or sensible. Both Gord Downie and Eazy-E have been censored in the past, and one of those guys might receive the Order of Canada one day. And if we have regulatory bodies, why is radio favoured with so much attention? Never mind films, which in theory have age ratings, whereas radio offends across the very air we breathe, passing its filth into every innocent passing ear. What about newspapers? Absent wise decisions on context, we will need a stronger body to censor articles like this one, in which you will now have read the word “faggot” a half-dozen times.www.montrealgazette.com/entertainment/Mark+Knopfler+Eminem+Canada/4105724/story.html |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jan 14, 2011 9:11:29 GMT -5
Who says the public doesn't have power over our airwaves? The power of ONE, no less.
Yes, let's ban something that's been on-the-air for 26 years for three usages of one word.
Okay let me try.
I think something that's been on-the-air for 30 years should be banned. Don Cherry's "Coach's Corner" has offended pretty much everybody except white, anglo, Conservative, male Canadians who like the Toronto Maple Leafs and Boston Bruins. Numerous examples can be cited in which Mr. Cherry has used our public airwaves to slur and stereotype French Canadians, European hockey players, women, and everyone who doesn't march to his political drum.
I'll be waiting......
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 14, 2011 9:20:41 GMT -5
Thanks BC. I have a gay nephew and he could care less. He's only 20 and far above this kind of stuff.
One complaint is all it took, eh? This debate is nothing new. This reminded me of an episode of WKRP where Art Carlson was debating whether he should ban the song "Imagine" by John Lennon because it was on a list of offensive songs. The episode is called Clean Up Radio Everywhere and in the end Carlson gives the okay to run it. Here's a cut and paste from imdb.com that shows part of the conversation between Carlson and Dr. Bob Halyers. To me, the script does not reflect badly on religion. It reflects on intollerance. And that intollerance could eminate from anyone, anywhere:
Dr. Bob Halyers: [Mr. Carlson is asking whether a certain song is suitable or not for airplay] "Imagine there's no heaven / It's easy if you try / No hell below us / Above us only sky... Nothing to kill or die for / And no religion too... Imagine no possessions... Imagine all the people sharing all the world." That sounds like Communism to me. If there's no heaven, no religion and I assume no God.
Arthur 'Big Guy' Carlson: There's not an obscene word in here.
Dr. Bob Halyers: Not the way I see it.
Arthur 'Big Guy' Carlson: Go on your list? (a list of banned songs made up by Halyer)
Dr. Bob Halyers: Arthur, this is typical of the kind of secular liberal humanist point of view that gluts our airwaves.
Arthur 'Big Guy' Carlson: Yeah. But we're not talking obscenities here anymore, Bob. We're talking about ideas, political, the philosophical ideas. First you censor a word and then you censor the ideas.
Dr. Bob Halyers: But the idea is man-centered, not God-centered. The Bible tells us to put our reliance in God, not in our fellow mortals. Arthur, this song says there's no heaven.
Arthur 'Big Guy' Carlson: Ah, no, it says just imagine there's no heaven.
Dr. Bob Halyers: That's blasphemy.
Arthur 'Big Guy' Carlson: On the list or not?
Dr. Bob Halyers: I have no choice but to say "on."
Arthur 'Big Guy' Carlson: That decision was made by one man!
=============================================================
... and later in the exchange ....
=============================================================
Arthur 'Big Guy' Carlson: I don't want to argue the point any further, but I would like to express one other thought that occurs to me.
Dr. Bob Halyers: Surely.
Arthur 'Big Guy' Carlson: Bob, watch out for those broadcasters that cave into your pressure, because principle's not going to mean a darn thing to them. All they're going to be doing is saving their swimming pools. Ah, they'll be the first ones to come and sit at your table. But I think the good ones are going to be the ones that are willing to take a loss and put up a fight.
Dr. Bob Halyers: Well then, I'll just have to love my enemies, Arthur, like the good book says.
Arthur 'Big Guy' Carlson: I hope so. because I don't think you'll be able to trust your friends.
Dr. Bob Halyers: Good bye, Arthur.
========================================================
In the end, Carlson opts to ignore the list and play the song.
========================================================
PS: This quote by Les Nessman sums it up for quite a few of us.
Les Nessman: If Edward R. Murrow, my idol, were here, he'd say, "That's censorship!" On the other hand, if General George Patton -- my other idol -- were here, I think he'd take a battalion of tanks, and knock those liberal pinheads into the Ohio River!
[pause]
Les Nessman: So, as you can see ... I'm a very confused man.
Brilliant ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 14, 2011 9:52:49 GMT -5
one woman who said "gay teens are committing suicide and we have to do everything we can to stop that". huh? this song, 25 years old, is causing teens to commit suicide or too bully gays? but that isn't the issue. I agree with Kelly McParland: You may have noticed the global snort of derision when it became known that Money For Nothing, a 25-year-old Dire Straits song written by Mark Knopfler and Sting, has been ruled too offensive for Canadian radio play.
What’s interesting, apart from the simple lunacy of suddenly banning a tune that’s 25 years old and has already been played about a billion times, is the reason: A radio station in St. John’s received a complaint.
That’s all it takes in Canada: One person to take offense.
A week ago we learned that the entire city council of London, Ontario had been ordered to take sensitivity training after a friend of one of the councillors posted a saucy song on his Facebook page. The council member quickly took it down, but “at least one person who saw it … complained,” according to the London Free Press.
On Wednesday Graeme Hamilton reported that Montreal chef Martin Picard had withdrawn from plans to host a gala dinner at Ottawa’s annual Winterlude festival next month, after the National Capital Commission told him to drop any thought of including foie gras on the menu (which with Picard was a certainty). The reason: the always tremulous NCC was afraid animal rights protesters might turn up and disrupt the fun. After all, some obscure local group of animal rights weenies “mounted an eight-person protest against Mr. Picard in December.”
Eight people.
Minority rights are fine and all, but when did it become the practice that, in a country of 34 million people, a single person could overrule all the others simply by declaring they were offended?its gotten so that anyone can complain about being offended and all we want to do is placate. Canada: home of the bland. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 14, 2011 9:59:11 GMT -5
More on the blandation of Canada: Student Awards Cut: Some schools in British Columbia and Alberta have cancelled year-end award ceremonies for students’ academic and athletic achievements, saying they give students the wrong kind of motivation and ignore other pupils’ talents and interests.
“Someone who would usually get that award or is a strong learner will focus on the criteria and hit the checklist to get the award instead of going further with their learning,” said George Couros, principal at Forest Green School in Stony Plain, Alta.
Mr. Couros said his school, one of a growing number moving away from awards-based recognition, wants to focus on collaboration rather than competition. Students receive regular encouragement from their teachers without the public ceremony, he said.
Principal Chris Wejr of Kent elementary school in Agassiz, B.C., wrote on his blog Tuesday that parents who like student awards and display the “proud parent of an honour roll student” bumper sticker would be disappointed and frustrated by the school’s decision to cancel the ceremony.
But he said the key question is “why are we still having huge ceremonies that award a select few and fail to recognize so many strengths, talents and interests of our students?”
However, critics argued Wednesday rivalry is an inevitable part of life.
“Competition is a mechanism by which to encourage excellence among students and to equip them with the real-life skills of getting used to the idea that in various aspects of their lives they will be competing and that some will win and some will lose,” said Peter Cowley, an education policy researcher at the Fraser Institute in Vancouver.
Mr. Couros acknowledges the opportunity to both win and lose in school can prepare students for the workplace. However, he said he would rather create a school that functions like a nurturing family than a business. He argued schools can create a more desirable work model that the corporate world may want to emulate.
“What’s the kind of work environment that you want to be a part of? One where we’re all recognized on a continuous basis for the things that we’re doing? Or, only a few of us are recognized annually in some ceremony?” Mr. Couros asked.
Mark Beauchamp, assistant professor in the School of Human Kinetics at the University of British Columbia, said awards can boost students’ confidence and motivation.
“Rewards themselves aren’t problematic it’s just how those rewards are used,” he said. “If rewards are just given out on a blanket basis to everyone, those rewards can actually become quite meaningless because they’re not providing anyone with a sense of competence.”
Mr. Cowley cautioned against giving equal weight to a student’s strengths, talents and interests, as Mr. Wejr suggests.“Interest in a subject is really not something you want to spend too much time celebrating. First off because, how do we know? And second, so what?” he said.let's all play nice and get along . . . and at the same time, be glad that the Russians beat team Canada in the WJCs and that Pittsburgh beat Montreal the other night, because, gee whiz, they played hard; and let's welcome Target to Canada because, gee whiz, it doesn't matter what companies are making money as long as someone does. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 14, 2011 10:12:03 GMT -5
the question, I guess, is where does censorship begin, where does it end, and who gets the final say? someone is going to offend someone else somehow . . . and once you start [Huck Finn, Tom Sawyer, what next? "The Shining" because it offends the mentally ill and "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" because it offends nurses?
Will Stevie Wonder's "Living for the City" be banned because it uses the "n word" [in fact, using the term "n word" is offensive to some non-whites (sorry, can't think of what the acceptable term is today)]? And what of a lot of rap music and its degradation of women? [my sister-in-laws favourite joke: some inner city kids are taken on a field trip to a farm; they see some people working in a field with some strange looking tools; one asks what the tool is; the farmer answers "that's a hoe"; the boy replies "my sister's a ho and she don't look nothin' like that . . . but I digress].
[to be continued]
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jan 14, 2011 10:27:51 GMT -5
Will Stevie Wonder's "Living for the City" be banned because it uses the "n word" [in fact, using the term "n word" is offensive to some non-whites (sorry, can't think of what the acceptable term is today)]? Comedian Louis CK has a great bit on that topic. He's offended when somebody uses the PC phrase "the n-word", because it makes the listener say the full word in his head anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 14, 2011 12:25:34 GMT -5
There is a new version of that song playing over and over in my head....
.......the little fa**ot censors can go f**k themselves.
Anybody want to bet that this has nothing to do with that one complaint and has everything to do with the gay community flexing it's political muscle?.
In the US, they want to ban the word "ni**er" from Huckleberry Finn. The use of the word itself shapes the understanding of the morals and language of that time, yet they want to sanitize it. Meanwhile, you hear that work in practically every rap song.
Anybody else HATE big government and pc thought police or is it just me?
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 14, 2011 12:35:05 GMT -5
Minority rights are fine and all, but when did it become the practice that, in a country of 34 million people, a single person could overrule all the others simply by declaring they were offended? Hmmm... didn't we already have this discussion? I seem to recall some sort of debate over what would be a reasonable accommodation of minorities... |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jan 14, 2011 12:42:34 GMT -5
How long before the "little people" in Canada demand a banning of Randy Newman's "Short People" from the airwaves?
|
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on Jan 14, 2011 12:44:38 GMT -5
There is a new version of that song playing over and over in my head.... .......the little fa**ot censors can go f**k themselves. Anybody want to bet that this has nothing to do with that one complaint and has everything to do with the gay community flexing it's political muscle?. In the US, they want to ban the word "ni**er" from Huckleberry Finn. The use of the word itself shapes the understanding of the morals and language of that time, yet they want to sanitize it. Meanwhile, you hear that work in practically every rap song. Anybody else HATE big government and pc thought police or is it just me? Just to set the fact straight. Nobody proposed banning the word ni**er from Huckleberry Finn and it has nothing to do with government. A publisher printed a version replacing the word with slave (also replacing injun with indian etc.) for schools that wanted it. The rationale is that in a real classroom situation it's use in Huckleberry Finn proves to be too disruptive and draws attention away from the themes of the book. Not that I necessarily agree with the publisher. One cannot help but think of the last line of the book where Huck says, "But I reckon I got to light out for the Territory ahead of the rest, because Aunt Sally she's going to adopt me and sivilize me, and I can't stand it. I been there before." |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 14, 2011 13:12:09 GMT -5
Minority rights are fine and all, but when did it become the practice that, in a country of 34 million people, a single person could overrule all the others simply by declaring they were offended? Hmmm... didn't we already have this discussion? I seem to recall some sort of debate over what would be a reasonable accommodation of minorities... Snickers ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 14, 2011 13:35:45 GMT -5
one woman who said "gay teens are committing suicide and we have to do everything we can to stop that". huh? this song, 25 years old, is causing teens to commit suicide or too bully gays? I think another part of the issue (which everyone is forgetting) is that radio stations have been editing songs on their own for a long time ... in fact, one Canadian radio station edited the word out of Money For Nothing (back in the 80's I believe) and he never received one single complaint about the revision ... so is that one word so important to the song? I'm not sure what radio stations are like elsewhere in Canada, but here in St. John's (censor capital of Canada apparently) every second song on the radio has a built in pause to edit a word .... you don't like the revision to the song, go buy the CD and listen to your heart's content I say |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 14, 2011 13:44:54 GMT -5
one woman who said "gay teens are committing suicide and we have to do everything we can to stop that". huh? this song, 25 years old, is causing teens to commit suicide or too bully gays? I think another part of the issue (which everyone is forgetting) is that radio stations have been editing songs on their own for a long time ... in fact, one Canadian radio station edited the word out of Money For Nothing (back in the 80's I believe) and he never received one single complaint about the revision ... so is that one word so important to the song? I'm not sure what radio stations are like elsewhere in Canada, but here in St. John's (censor capital of Canada apparently) every second song on the radio has a built in pause to edit a word .... you don't like the revision to the song, go buy the CD and listen to your heart's content I say Radio stations may edit songs - heck, they may be doing so in response to complaints from their listeners - but they do so out of their own free will. Whether that free will is motivated by their wallets is debatable, but it is their choice nonetheless. However, now we have a situation where radio stations cannot play the song as is. No free will. Line, where be thou? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 14, 2011 14:12:38 GMT -5
exactly, BC. and that's kind of my point. who sets the line? is it the lowest common denominator wherein one person is offended / has hurt feelings so we remove or limit the hurtful word/image? I don't like Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" and I'm not enamored with Renee Cox's "Yo Mama’s Last Supper".. . . do I demand that it be removed from the museum? I think the "Saw" movies [admittedly I haven't seen anything more than the trailers] are obscene [yup, my definition of obscene differs from how others may define it] . . . do I picket or boycott the theatre or video store, or demand that they be removed? yes, reasonable accommodation is a good thing. but how about a little common sense? I think another part of the issue (which everyone is forgetting) is that radio stations have been editing songs on their own for a long time ... in fact, one Canadian radio station edited the word out of Money For Nothing (back in the 80's I believe) and he never received one single complaint about the revision ... so is that one word so important to the song? actually, Dire Straits put out an edited version with the whole verse cut out. the counter thought: if you don't like the way the radio station plays it, listen to a different radio station! if I don't like a television show [and there are some -- especially the ones that show the Montreal Canadiens losing  ] do I call the station and demand that they no longer play the show? no, I turn the channel and watch something else. otherwise we are going to be watching . . . nothing . . . because someone somewhere will be offended with something. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 14, 2011 14:34:31 GMT -5
Radio stations may edit songs ... but they do so out of their own free will. Whether that free will is motivated by their wallets is debatable, but it is their choice nonetheless. However, now we have a situation where radio stations cannot play the song as is. No free will. Line, where be thou? This is done routinely here in Kingston, BC. The Tragically Hip are a Kingston-based band. The Hip will sometimes use derrogatory words in the music, but here in Kingston we hear the uncut versions of each Hip song. However, the same radio station will routinely fade out offensive words in songs by Staind. I guess it's whatever the owner of the station feels is worthy, not so much appropriate. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 14, 2011 14:43:54 GMT -5
yes, reasonable accommodation is a good thing. but how about a little common sense? Let me ask the naked tribesman next to me ... ;D Edit: Is this something the studio probably wanted? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 14, 2011 15:46:50 GMT -5
actually, Dire Straits put out an edited version with the whole verse cut out. They may have ... but the article in the paper here this morning mentioned that it was actually a radio station back in the day that edited. Sting and Knopfler didn't want the song edited. Not so easily done mon frere .... this is the radio afterall. Can you kindly tell me what songs will be playing on the radio at any point in the day? I am driving down the road in my car, I think it is a reasonable request for my young daughters not to hear "I'm a B*tch, I am lover ...." or yes even "f*ggot" Now before we (that the general we) all get high and mighty about censorship here ... have you tried typing curse words on this board??? Does this board not do the same thing and sensor/edit words by turning them into something different? Rooster-sucker anyone? Bueller? Bueller? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 14, 2011 15:51:52 GMT -5
However, now we have a situation where radio stations cannot play the song as is. No free will. Line, where be thou? They can play the song .. just without the word. Or even the other released version by the same group. Again, explain to me how this board does not do the same thing .... do I (or anyone) have the free will to type any word I please on here? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 14, 2011 17:00:48 GMT -5
George Carlin's "Seven Words You Can't Say . . . " would be quite a bit different today.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 14, 2011 17:07:00 GMT -5
Not so easily done mon frere .... this is the radio afterall. Can you kindly tell me what songs will be playing on the radio at any point in the day? I am driving down the road in my car, I think it is a reasonable request for my young daughters not to hear "I'm a B*tch, I am lover ...." or yes even "f*ggot" please don't get me wrong . . . but there are certain stations I won't listen to [rather, certain DJs] because I know that they will be crass or vulgar. Howard Stern is one I would never tune to, for example. but point taken. I think that if you are listening to a station with popular music you are going to hear something you don't want to hear, though. um . . . nope ;D not even the Hitch-coach's name, I don't think. a slight difference between voluntary or self-censorship and mandated censorship. I'm sure I could find another board where those words are used, if I so chose. as I said, though . . . |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 14, 2011 17:09:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 14, 2011 18:14:10 GMT -5
George Carlin's "Seven Words You Can't Say . . . " would be quite a bit different today. When I'm on a ladder in California putting up Christmas lights and I hit my thumb with a hammer, I just yell at the top of my lungs, "HOST! CHALICE! TABERNACLE!" The neighbors think I'm truly a religeous man. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 14, 2011 18:44:42 GMT -5
Again, explain to me how this board does not do the same thing .... do I (or anyone) have the free will to type any word I please on here? Two words......voluntary.....mandatory. AFAIK....the reason we did it is just in case a pre-teen reads the board. It's a decision of THIS board and in no way demands/asks/requires/mandates any other board to do the same nor demands/asks/requires/mandates for anyone to come here. As for your daughter.... If you don't like what the radio station is playing, turn to another radio station, shut it off, do any number of things that parents do if they don't want their children to hear something. Your "right" not to hear it is simple as controlling YOUR environment. Not mine. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 14, 2011 18:46:17 GMT -5
It's wherever the last minority screams loudest. Wait a minute....why can't I demand to ban words? I want the word "pinky" banned, it's used as a derogatory term against white people. Come to think of it, I also want "crack" to be banned. It's used so often with the word "a$$" that I can no longer tolerate the visual assaulting image that it represents. There are more....and I'll post them after I have my Black Angus steak and White Bread Pudding. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 14, 2011 19:08:38 GMT -5
There is a new version of that song playing over and over in my head.... .......the little fa**ot censors can go f**k themselves. Anybody want to bet that this has nothing to do with that one complaint and has everything to do with the gay community flexing it's political muscle?. In the US, they want to ban the word "ni**er" from Huckleberry Finn. The use of the word itself shapes the understanding of the morals and language of that time, yet they want to sanitize it. Meanwhile, you hear that work in practically every rap song. Anybody else HATE big government and pc thought police or is it just me? Just to set the fact straight. Nobody proposed banning the word ni**er from Huckleberry Finn and it has nothing to do with government. A publisher printed a version replacing the word with slave (also replacing injun with indian etc.) for schools that wanted it. The rationale is that in a real classroom situation it's use in Huckleberry Finn proves to be too disruptive and draws attention away from the themes of the book. Not that I necessarily agree with the publisher. One cannot help but think of the last line of the book where Huck says, "But I reckon I got to light out for the Territory ahead of the rest, because Aunt Sally she's going to adopt me and sivilize me, and I can't stand it. I been there before." I stand corrected in the use of "ban". One publisher has done it but how long will it be before it's standard fare in classrooms? Claims of "disruptive" should fall on deaf ears. The book reflects the language used at that time and if anything, an intelligent teacher can use it to point to the progress made over time. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 15, 2011 10:07:21 GMT -5
Again, explain to me how this board does not do the same thing .... do I (or anyone) have the free will to type any word I please on here? Two words......voluntary.....mandatory. AFAIK....the reason we did it is just in case a pre-teen reads the board. It's a decision of THIS board and in no way demands/asks/requires/mandates any other board to do the same nor demands/asks/requires/mandates for anyone to come here. As for your daughter.... If you don't like what the radio station is playing, turn to another radio station, shut it off, do any number of things that parents do if they don't want their children to hear something. Your "right" not to hear it is simple as controlling YOUR environment. Not mine. I guess CO can weigh in on this (I may be wrong)... but A radio station is governed by the CRTC. They have rules to follow. If they do not want to follow those rules then they do not have to set up a radio station. They have to play 66% Canadian content and they can not incite violence (for examples) I disagree with your voluntary vs mandatory comparison. The reason the CRTC does it is in case pre-teens and younger hear the words and are incited (or yes parent's offended), and for legal reason. Now as for the internet. They do not have free-will either. I can not come on here and type anything I want. For one, you mods will catch it and rightfully delete (and most probably) ban me ... if it passes through the cracks, well there are internet rules too. I would think, that leaving certain posts (inciting violence, hate speech, all sorts of examples) could possibly get CO in alot of trouble (not to mention me) if left on the board (he could be seen as agreeing with the message if not). So posts are moderated for decorum yes, but also from a legal perspective too ... and that's what the CRTC is doing with the radio stations. Don't incite listeners, we can become vicariously libel if you do .... and thats what this listener did, she convinced (in other words proved her point) that the song incited young listeners to violence / bullying. |
|
] do I call the station and demand that they no longer play the show? no, I turn the channel and watch something else. otherwise we are going to be watching . . . nothing . . . because someone somewhere will be offended with something.