Censorship on Radio Stations

DeletedUser34315

The song Money for Nothing was recently banned on canadian radio stations.
The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council declared that it was "too offensive for Canadian airwaves. "

The song contains lyrics that contain what are today considered homophobic slurs, albeit in a humorous fashion, not a discriminatory one.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/dire-straits-money-for-nothing-banned-in-canada-20110114

The CBSC later recanted their decision, http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/canada-lifts-ban-on-dire-straits-money-for-nothing-20110901 after a substantial amount of negative fan reactions.
This ties into a larger question: Should quasi-governmental agencies have the ability to limit private media in the name of good taste?

I'd say no. If a private entity wants to be graphic, obscene, etc- that is their prerogative.
 

DeletedUser28032

In my personal oppinion no you shouldn't be censoring song lyrics as it often makes the whole thing unlistenable and half the time the words they've censored aren't even offensive (or at least not in my oppinion but there you go).
The station should either play the song or not play the song or do like they do on TV and have a watershed
 

tigermite

Of course there shouldn't be censorship.

The kind of people who listen to the kind of music that contains 'offensive language' aren't the kind of people who get offended by 'offensive language'.
 

DeletedUser31931

Indeed tiger, but surely you're not just catering for the people who do listen to the "offensive" music but everyone who listens to the station. I agree with braet's idea of a watershed, it does make the most sense, especially for a station that is attempting to be "family friendly" like any BBC radio station.
 

DeletedUser16008

Given this song has been around for 2 decades it seems a little after the fact to me and ridiculous to even think about it now.

Actually the word in MFN is used to show the jealously that people have for the success and resentment sometimes thrown at artists, in this case the conception Musicians dont really work for their money . People like to have an excuse and hate on others name calling is a favourite MFN was showing the irony and shallowness of that resentment from the same class of people they came from once they started getting popular with their music.

Gov trys to censor everything where the media is concerned, its ability to do so with the main media stations is well documented trying it on the private sector comes as no surprise. People have a button on the radio to tune out of or the editor has that decision to make in good or bad taste. If listeners dont agree then the ratings will show it pretty quickly watershed times are all ( if anything ) that is needed.

If you don't think this is the case then have a look around at the amount of stories and news on alternative media that is totally ignored on main street.

It is truly shocking what is not covered by media when it should be and front page news worthy instead it covers trivial stories about celebrities and other irrelevant news.

I don't believe in censorship at all apart from a watershed for the very young, if someone dosnt like whats on after that then either they can turn over or switch off. If its about the child with a watershed you have to ask what kind of parent is allowing their child to stay up to watch or listen to something so sensitive.
 

DeletedUser1121

What about forum mods censoring forum posts?

Better or just as bad?


Let me quote a very wise man:

A comment about Freedom of speech as it is posed in some nation constitutions. While rallied as a fundamental right, every nation poses restrictions; ones that relate to violation of privacy, imposition of harm, danger to others, or threat of harm. Say the wrong thing, you may be imprisoned and may be forced to financially compensate the government or your victims. So, in truth, freedom of speech is heavily curtailed in "every" nation. I.e., it's not a rule, more like a pipe dream.

Now, i'm going to address the mistake most people make about the internet and these forums. Freedom of Speech exists almost nowhere on the internet. Almost all websites are privately owned, with a few government owned (and thus arguably publicly owned) that provide information only, don't provide you sections (forums, etc) to publicly post.

All privately owned websites are, essentially, on someone's private property. Speech is then posed as a privilege, not a right, which can be taken away if you violate the terms & conditions (the rules) as posed by the hosts of said websites. For example, this forum has rules. The owners are Innogames. You violate the rules of this forum, you can be penalized (even banned) and your post can be deleted.

It's pretty simple: When you visit any website, you're visiting someone else' house or place of business. Offend the hosts, urinate on their sofas, insult others in their household, start a fight, don't be surprised to find yourself facedown, ass-up, on the curb with a tent pole firmly affixed.
 

DeletedUser1121

He was spot on in that reply. People think they can say everything they want on this forum for instance, yet they forget that there are rules and regulations they need to follow.
 

Snr Sarg

Well-Known Member
Yup, he also moderated without personal grudges or bending the rules to suit his own argument
 

DeletedUser1121

I am sure he did. But this is not a praise Hellstromm thread, so before we get off topic, I would love to hear more about your view on the quote i posted instead of what you think of HS.
 

Snr Sarg

Well-Known Member
I am sure he did. But this is not a praise Hellstromm thread, so before we get off topic, I would love to hear more about your view on the quote i posted instead of what you think of HS.

I'd love to hear YOUR answer to my original question rather than borrowing somebody elses.

But, to answer your question, while I enjoyed Hellstromm's post and I agree with its sentiment, I cannot ignore the actual law on the subject either.

On the assumption that the host of this forum is governed by German law, let's take a look what they have to say on the matter.

The constitution of the Bundesrepublik Deutschland guarantees freedom of press, speech, and opinion. Now, as Hellstromm correctly pointed out, every nation poses restrictions on this. Germany's restrictions include items such as:


  • Insults, although satire and similar forms of art enjoy more freedom but have to respect human dignity (Article 1 of the Basic law).
  • Malicious gossip and defamation. Utterances about facts (opposed to personal judgement) are allowed if they are true and can be proven.
  • Hate speech may be punishable if against segments of the population and in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace (Section 130 [Agitation of the People]), including racist agitation and antisemitism.
  • Holocaust denial
There are a number of other restrictions but these are the main ones that I can see.



My point is that there is nothing, currently, about there being any restrictions to one's basic right to free speech on private company's websites or forums unless that 'free speech' contravenes any of the other censorship regulations.


In other words, Hell's point about a website being privately owned property does not mean that the company can just make their own laws, they must still abide by the law of the land concerned.

Forum rules are all well and good and they are necessary to ensure that the forum does indeed abide by the laws of the land, but they may not take the law into their own hands.


In other words, deleting a post because the moderator either disagrees with the point being made, or because it criticises the company concerned is not a legitimate censorship under German Law.


So moderators, by all means continue to remove offensive posts, or those containing foul language, etc, but please try to avoid misinterpreting the relevant rules.


For example, what should the interpretation of this rule be?


Do not spam, 'troll' or go off-topic in a discussion. This includes one word posts such as "agreed", which should be voiced through the reputation system.


I.e. how many words does a thread reply need to be before it cannot be classed as spam?


EDIT: Germany also has some interesting laws on persecution & harassment ;)

Je suis Charlie

10923269_10205669535447535_267108249129035064_n.jpg
 
Last edited:

PJMAX

The very definition of Private means the entity has the right to set rules as it deems fit, without any outside interference, as long as those are within the purview of the laws of the land.

If you are inferring the rules set by the Innogames are not legit and in contravention, you'd be following the long and illustrious but painfully misinformed group of trollers who harp on and on about an illogical conclusion they have arrived without considering the full spectrum of information.

As such, the rules keep constantly evolving with interaction with the community. The reason behind rules is to keep a healthy and functioning community interaction, and in the subset of forums, the last call is with the Community Managers. If you disagree, you are welcome to present your point in a polite manner or take it with someone with a higher authority, but please desist from attacking the volunteers trying to help out.

As much you'd like to believe there is a personal agenda, the group is more than one person and each one is accountable and responsible to a collective group of other volunteers.
 

Snr Sarg

Well-Known Member
The very definition of Private means the entity has the right to set rules as it deems fit, without any outside interference, as long as those are within the purview of the laws of the land.

Precisely!

If you are inferring the rules set by the Innogames are not legit and in contravention, you'd be following the long and illustrious but painfully misinformed group of trollers who harp on and on about an illogical conclusion they have arrived without considering the full spectrum of information.

How you interpret my point is down to you. I have no problem at all with Inno's rules, I do have questions about how they are sometimes interpreted by the moderation team and have thus far been unable to get the clarification required.

I believe that one or two or the rules are somewhat ambiguous and therefore believe that it would be in the community's best interests if clearer guidelines were laid down, such as the point mentioned in my previous post about what is and what isn't a 'spam' post

Also, regarding infractions, I am told that these can be appealed, but have not yet been able to discover how, so perhaps you could let me know about this too?

And what are the rules on 'baiting'?
 

DeletedUser22685

And I think that's all we really need to hear about that.

We're starting to go way off topic. If you'd like to discuss freedom of speech as it pertains to radio, then by all means continue. We will not be debating the forum rules in this thread or anywhere. If you're unsure of a rule or have a question about how a particular rule is to be interpreted, feel free to send myself or one of the other forum mods a PM.

If this thread continues to go off topic we'll be locking and infracting. There's your fair warning.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tigermite

Snr Sarg, you can't compare censorship on radio/any broadcast station to forum rules. The forum is more or less a a community, and therefore has its own laws for the benefit of that community, abiding by the laws of the hosts' country. A radio station broadcasts messages indiscriminately, and therefore freedom of speech should apply. Talking about the forum in that context is, as Futu said, OT.
 
Top