Orwell That Ends Well
In America, some don't take the theart of censorship in the post-Arizona killings seriously, since we're protected by the First Amendmnent. But we have to remember, if we didn't have it, how easily "liberal" governments could take away our freedom for our own good.
Recently, American saw a bowdlerized Huckleberry Finn for teaching purposes. At least (supposedly) that's a private idea for an extra edition, not replacing the original (though it could in the future). It's not a government demand.
However, up north, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has banned Dire Straits "Money For Nothing" (25 years after the fact) for the use of the word "faggot." As always, the censors know best. They can listen to whatever they like year-in year-out, but they need to protect the public from bad concepts. Above all, let's not have a discussion about it. (Censors often claim they're protecting the weak, though you'll notice they tend to represent dominant opinion.)
The song had been attacked when it originally came out. (I remember a particularly idiotic statement in the Village Voice about how when Sting sings "I want my MTV," he's singing it to the tune of "Don't stand so close to me" which clearly is him warning off homosexuals.) Fine, attack it. But it shows, if nothing else, a missing sense of humor. Within context (and either censors don't believe in context, or think everyone is too stupid to get it), the song is about a dumb guy ranting in a socially unacceptable way. That's the point. That's why it works. If you're worried it'll have a bad effect, explain to other why, don't stop it from being heard to begin with.
5 Comments:
Feh, that's not the kind of censorship that worries me, this is.
Largely agree (Canada also rules requiring politeness too, doesn't- can some one fill me in aboot it?) but now for the quibble- I don't think the song is about "is about a dumb guy ranting in a socially unacceptable way" (although thats probably the way the hoi polloi & censors view it). I've always thought its about the disdain that working people have for coddled celebrities using language that was fairly prevalent in 1985 (as standards have changed, "faggot" is probably more offensive now than it was then - same thing with Twain's use of "nigger" and "injun")
Post Note: For years, I have heard that song with the word, "faggot" extricated when played on the radio (I can think of two other examples- "fuck her" in Alanis Morrisette's "You Oughta Know" and "sonofabitch" in Charlie Daniel's "The Devil Went Down to Georgia"). Although awkward, that always seemed to be a workable solution to avoid offending various sensibilities (i.e sensibilities with significant political or consumer power). I have less of a problem with private censoring as long as it very clear that censoring is going on. In Huckleberry Finn, if the new edition uses a trick like printing the redacted/modified phrase as "[Slave] Jim" or used "*"'s each time or [expletive deleted]in the actual text and have an explanatory note somewhere, I think that is a workable solution. I wish we were all free speech absolutists and people weren't bothered by such things but that is not the world we live in.
QG, when yahoos like that gain the power to enact and enforce their brand of censorship, I'll join you in the bunker and we can compare our choices of alcohol and ammunition.
Deal. Dibs on the Islay single malts and depleted uranium shells.
"Depleted Uranium Shells"?
Man, have you been holding out on us.
Post a Comment
<< Home