BBC and the Fairytale of New York

Always found it odd that it's been allowed before the watershed anyway. If this song came out today it would be censored. Was that word so commonplace at the time that it could play on the radio uncensored?
 
mmj_uk said:
The same could be asked of those pushing this kind of censorship, who put the BBC and other private corporations in control of policing things that some sensitive people might find offensive? and since when did being offended by something mean that it should be eradicated from history? we're moving towards the societal equivalent of living in a padded room with nothing there to cause harm(offence). The best example for me was Donald Trump being cut out of his cameo role in Home Alone.
Click to expand...
What does any of that have to do with this?
 
I think people miss the point about these sort of things. It's not banned because of some kinda wokism leftist conspiracy to stop people calling a "spade" a spade... it's because there are plenty enough ****heads about who think because they heard the word on the BBC (or whatever station), it's okay to use, no matter that people might take offence and that makes the broadcaster culpable in any offence caused.

If libertarians want someone to blame, they should start with the morons that go around calling people faggots, or whatever other derogatory language is currently de riguour whist masquerading as standing up for "free of speech". They're the ones getting stuff like this banned.
 
Maccy said:
I get called it every time I get a kill in Warzone. Thankfully it's not that often...
Click to expand...

You go girl :D

tenor.gif


james.miller said:
What does any of that have to do with this?
Click to expand...

The lengths he goes to to give the ol' Trumpy a good noshing in any thread possible is fantastic, the words "tedious link" were pretty much made for this guy :D
 
inogen said:
I think people miss the point about these sort of things. It's not banned because of some kinda wokism leftist conspiracy to stop people calling a "spade" a spade... it's because there are plenty enough ****heads about who think because they heard the word on the BBC (or whatever station), it's okay to use, no matter that people might take offence and that makes the broadcaster culpable in any offence caused.

If libertarians want someone to blame, they should start with the morons that go around calling people faggots, or whatever other derogatory language is currently de riguour whist masquerading as standing up for "free of speech". They're the ones getting stuff like this banned.
Click to expand...
This argument essentially boils down to we can't have nice things because idiots don't know how to use them. And you can extend that to a lot of things (knives, use of vehicles, heck even an education). It's a balance of freedom.

On this specific case I really don't care, and like I said above if it came out today it would be censored.
 
Doesn't this story go around every year? If not for this song then some of the others. ISTR The Guardian or similar running an article describing Baby It's Cold Outside as an 'ode to rape' or something equally ridiculous.
They can censor what they like IMO -I'm past caring
 
Mason- said:
This argument essentially boils down to we can't have nice things because idiots don't know how to use them. And you can extend that to a lot of things (knives, use of vehicles, heck even an education). It's a balance of freedom.

On this specific case I really don't care, and like I said above if it came out today it would be censored.
Click to expand...

Yep. Freedom to do gets curtailed when it impacts people's freedom from. That's the balance, that's the social contract.

Too many people like to blame the invisible marxist bogeyman rather than realising it's people's poor behaviour that directly causes the loss of societal freedom.
 
inogen said:
Yep. Freedom to do gets curtailed when it impacts people's freedom from. That's the balance, that's the social contract.

Too many people like to blame the invisible marxist bogeyman rather than realising it's people's poor behaviour that directly causes the loss of societal freedom.
Click to expand...

It's not really much of a contract when a supermajority of the electorate voted against the current government.

The correct term would be collective punishment.
 
Last edited:
plasmahal said:
Agreed, if it only offends one person, it's time for a change. It does not matter what the original intention or context was, not acceptable in 2020.
Click to expand...
You do talk some garbage, but this takes the cake :D.

We shouldn't try to retrospectively censor historical things, else where does it end? Not mentioning the term Nazi because of the atrocities of WW2 etc? :facepalm:

Society as a whole needs to make a decision at what is acceptable NOT a vocal minority or we (arguably already) will be held to ransom. I've come across it in a previous role where people would argue about the change of street names / roads etc because some poor soul is offended.

Back on topic: The word faggot and it's inclusion in the song hurts no one... is it distasteful in 2020? Yes, but so what? Radio stations have been playing it for 33 years. If they want to edit out a swear word then I couldn't care less as that's a stance that they've employed with rap etc for years so largely this is more a publicity stunt for Radio 1 than anything.

There's an argument that you should be able to listen to the song/album as the artist intended on CD/streaming so I would be disappointed if there was no way to listen to the original. Next up: statues in Rome covered up so that Little Johnny isn't offended by the little todgers.

The approach that some media services use works best IMO i.e. a warning prior to the programme to warn users that "this was made in a different period" so that they can choose to watch it or not. You can't do that with radio, given, so I'm fine with the radio edit approach. What I'm not fine with is this relentless pursuit to be offended by something.

* Insert Steve Hughes "offended" YouTube clip here *
 
Hades said:
I doubt it's that offensive to many people. But fair enough, if it does offend people then let's change it to make them feel more comfortable. Those that want to hear the version with offensive lyrics can just play it themselves. No issue.
Click to expand...

I'm offended at those people being offended. And they're probably offended at me being offended by them being offended. And so on. Who wins and why?

The first underlying problem is that the issue is not about offence. It's about power. Controlling what is said is power. How should that power be allocated?
The second, and much more serious, underlying problem is the question of whether or not context matters. I think it's extremely dangerous to decide that it doesn't.
 
Angilion said:
I'm offended at those people being offended. And they're probably offended at me being offended by them being offended. And so on. Who wins and why?

The first underlying problem is that the issue is not about offence. It's about power. Controlling what is said is power. How should that power be allocated?
The second, and much more serious, underlying problem is the question of whether or not context matters. I think it's extremely dangerous to decide that it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Indeed, look at Count Dankula, his prosecution was reprehensible, there was no malice whatsoever but to the zealot judge the context didn't matter.

Oxford union had a great debate on this.

Freedom of Speech and Right to Offend

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom