complaints for nothing, beeps for free

[Fragony]

gawd, there goes my respect for Canada, joins the ranks of the UK and Sweden as creepy thought police-states

[Fisherking]

Well, someone with a persecution complex complained. One person complained.

And the Canadian Bureaucracy showed their caring nature by banning one of the most popular songs of the 1980.... I guess they figure better late than never.

If you fallow the link: http://www.4shared.com/audio/BzMidp7...Drinkin_S.html


You will hear a song that was taken off air in the US by request from high officals. Guess Who?
It was 1982.

[Andres]

Sometimes, smiley says it all :

What else can one do when confronted with sheer stupidity?

[Hax]

Has it come to this?

Wake up from your slumber, Québec, it is time to secede!



Vive le Québec! Where the legal drinking age is just a suggestión.

[Ronin]

The song is actually poking fun at the "character" that uses the word.

anyway...censorship is faggotry!

[The Stranger]

gay song.

[Moros]

gay song.

Yes it always makes me gay as well.

[Paltmull]

gawd, there goes my respect for Canada, joins the ranks of the UK and Sweden as creepy thought police-states

Offtopic, i know, but are you talking about the FRA- law? Even though I'm heavily against it, I think it might sometimes be portrayed as a bit worse than it actually is. What this Wikipedia Article says is for example completely false. The state is not allowed to warrantlessly wiretap all telephone and Internet traffic. The original proposal was something like that (which of course is quite frightening), but due to heavy opposition it was altered quite a lot.

Ontopic: If Money For Nothing is actually offensive to homosexuals, how come it took 25 years before someone noticed it? I mean, come on! It's Dire Straits we're talking about here. They've gotta be the least offensive rock band ever to have existed.

[Fisherking]

Ontopic: If Money For Nothing is actually offensive to homosexuals, how come it took 25 years before someone noticed it? I mean, come on! It's Dire Straits we're talking about here. They've gotta be the least offensive rock band ever to have existed.

Right!

And in 25 years they have had a total of 1 complaint.

Doesn’t that show you how wonderfully sensitive and feeling Canada is?

I think they need drug testing actually...like to know what those people were on.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Ontopic: If Money For Nothing is actually offensive to homosexuals, how come it took 25 years before someone noticed it? I mean, come on! It's Dire Straits we're talking about here. They've gotta be the least offensive rock band ever to have existed.

But this is still offtopic

The topic is, as Andres said, "Should obscene/etc words be bleeped".

[Fisherking]

Okay

Beep no the beeping words shouldn’t be beeping beeped.

[Devastatin Dave]

I don't see what's so offensive. The little faggot with the ear ring and the make-up had a jet plane, nice hair, and lots of money. Of all my years "serving" truckers at my local truck stop I've yet to have it as good as that little faggot. I guess I need more make up and put my ear ring in again. Will i get banned in Cananda?

[Andres]

But this is still offtopic

The topic is, as Andres said, "Should obscene/etc words be bleeped".

A firm "no".

Many people always go crazy when there is but a simple hint of something that resembles something that could limit freedom of speech and expression, yet, apparently, allmost everybody happily accepts the bleeping out in songs or television shows of words like, oh the irony, and

While we're at it, covering a nipple with blots on television seems also utterly ridiculous to me. Or blotting out swear words on clothing of people who are interviewed or so.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

A firm "no".

Many people always go crazy when there is but a simple hint of something that resembles something that could limit freedom of speech and expression, yet, apparently, allmost everybody happily accepts the bleeping out in songs or television shows of words like, oh the irony, and

While we're at it, covering a nipple with blots on television seems also utterly ridiculous to me. Or blotting out swear words on clothing of people who are interviewed or so.

People who go crazy at the hint of some limitation of free speech are silly though. So I don't see that as reason to do away with it.

No. They should not. The only time censorship should be used is when violence against certain groups in society is encouraged. I hate the idea of the government or some bureau deciding what expressions or opinions are appropriate.

Why? We elected them. It's the people that want the f-word etc bleeped out on tv and radio. I can understand disagreeing with that and it does ruin some movies they show on tv (THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU MEET A STRANGER IN THE ALPS) but why take your own tolerance for obscenity as the gold standard? Other people live in the same country.

[Paltmull]

Why? We elected them. It's the people that want the f-word etc bleeped out on tv and radio. I can understand disagreeing with that and it does ruin some movies they show on tv (THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU MEET A STRANGER IN THE ALPS) but why take your own tolerance for obscenity as the gold standard? Other people live in the same country.

Well of course. If a majority of the voters in a democracy wants words bleeped, then sure, bleep them. But just because a majority happens to like censorship, it doesn't mean that I have to.

[HoreTore]

Paltmull, who decides what is hate speech, and what is not?

My point is that one cannot both say that there shouldn't be any censorship committees AND wish to outlaw hate speech. "Hate speech" is a wonderously loose term that can be applied to practically everything, and you will need a government committee to decide what goes and what doesn't. The song this very thread is about could easily be defined as hate speech towards gays, and in fact, the reason we have this thread is that someone did just that.

One will have to decide between accepting hate speech and allowing censorship. I feel like bringing this one up again:

Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties; and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.
Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.
Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

[Paltmull]

But this is still offtopic

The topic is, as Andres said, "Should obscene/etc words be bleeped".

No. They should not. The only time censorship should be used is when violence against certain groups in society is encouraged. I hate the idea of the government or some bureau deciding what expressions or opinions are appropriate.

EDIT: As explained later in this thread, my use of the word censorship here is a bit wrong. Texts, speeches etc. promoting violence towards certain groups should not be censored on beforehand. They should be illegal and lead to prosecution though.

Not as much, when it comes to privacy enfringment things are much worse here trust me, courtesy of a religiously insane christofacist that was minister of the justice department 'I can crush serpents and scorpions, I can arrest cartoonists, I am god' wikileaks says. Ernst Hirsch Ballin, or Hirschbollah as we call him. Evil guy

Aight. I was just curious of what you meant when you referred to Sweden as a "creepy thought police-state", and FRA was the only thing I could think of.

[HoreTore]

No. They should not. The only time censorship should be used is when violence against certain groups in society is encouraged. I hate the idea of the government or some bureau deciding what expressions or opinions are appropriate

Aight. I was just curious of what you meant when you referred to Sweden as a "creepy thought police-state", and FRA was the only thing I could think of.

So, you hate the idea of some government group deciding what is acceptable.

....And yet you propose that a government group is set up to censor speech you don't like(the very broad and vague term "incite violecen towards a group")....hmmm....

[Fragony]

No. They should not. The only time censorship should be used is when violence against certain groups in society is encouraged. I hate the idea of the government or some bureau deciding what expressions or opinions are appropriate.



Aight. I was just curious of what you meant when you referred to Sweden as a "creepy thought police-state", and FRA was the only thing I could think of.

Was more referring to Sweden's officials islamophilae and state controlled media

[Paltmull]

So, you hate the idea of some government group deciding what is acceptable.

....And yet you propose that a government group is set up to censor speech you don't like(the very broad and vague term "incite violecen towards a group")....hmmm....

My basic idea is that everyone should be allowed to live their lives in whatever way they want to. Therefore, the government should not decide what kind of behaviour is or isn't morally legitimate. Hate speech (in this case meaning the promotion of violence, and not just contempt, towards groups of a certain ethnicity, race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, political views etc.), on the other hand, is inciting violation of other people's most foundational rights. That's the difference. Also, censorship perhaps isn't the right term here. Songs, speeches etc. should not be censored on beforehand, but if they contain hate speech, the performer or writer or whatever should be prosecuted afterwards.

Was more referring to Sweden's officials islamophilae and state controlled media

Well, if you haven't noticed, last election an islamophobic party with nazi roots entered the parliament. There's both state controlled (which according to the law, should be independent even though it's publically financed. So it's not really state controlled, even though you could argue that it still is in practice), and non- state controlled media, but I get your point. Anyway; offtopic.

[Fragony]

Offtopic, i know, but are you talking about the FRA- law? Even though I'm heavily against it, I think it might sometimes be portrayed as a bit worse than it actually is. What this Wikipedia Article says is for example completely false. The state is not allowed to warrantlessly wiretap all telephone and Internet traffic. The original proposal was something like that (which of course is quite frightening), but due to heavy opposition it was altered quite a lot.

Ontopic: If Money For Nothing is actually offensive to homosexuals, how come it took 25 years before someone noticed it

Not as much, when it comes to privacy enfringment things are much worse here trust me, courtesy of a religiously insane christofacist that was minister of the justice department 'I can crush serpents and scorpions, I can arrest cartoonists, I am god' wikileaks says. Ernst Hirsch Ballin, or Hirschbollah as we call him. Evil guy