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.
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.