You gotta love government censorship, especially when it's 25 years later

So the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has decided that a song that was a big hit 25 years ago contains a word that cannot be heard today.

Basically, they are banning the album version of “Money for Nothing” because of it’s use of a word that is considered a gay slur.

I found the part where the article notes that this is the same board that didn’t have a problem with The Bloodhound Gang’s “The Bad Touch” especially ironic, among other examples.

Ah, the joys of censorship and “standards.”

Thanks for keeping me in suspense, Sarkus. The word is faggot.

I dont agree with censorship like this at all, but IF you are going to do it, how can you find this offensive, and a song called kill all the white men non offensive?

I read about this a couple of days ago and was blown away by the offensive idiocy of it. What they are banning is not the expression of prejudice but the portrayal of the existence of prejudiced people. Next they’ll be banning Randy Newman’s “Political Science” for fear that it will cause an actual nuclear war. Or “A Modest Proposal”, on the grounds that it’s an instruction manual for eating babies. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Censorship boards are more likely to promote the personal agendas of their members, so the news article should tell you everything you need to know about them.

Well… Kill All the White Men is sung by a bunch of white men, for one thing.

What is that, Hawaiian noises?

CBSC website

It’s not government censorship, it’s private industry censorship. Doesn’t make it any less stupid, though.

See, THAT’S the problem with industry self-regulation ;)

Money for nothing is a badass song. When the video came out for it originally, it was crazy awesome.

It wasn’t bad the first time as a novelty song. About 25,000 radio playings later, just the year it came out, it got a little old…

I agree. The problem with that song is that it defined Dire Straits in the minds of casual listeners, and the band’s music was mostly quite different from that one song.

Yeah, a lot of people were surprised when they got more Sultans of Swing than they got Walk of Life.

I like the song, but it’s pretty clear that it was intentionally created to get the a relatively quirky band some airplay and some dosh in their pockets.

It’s not like they were alone…

What’s funny about this statement is that both of those songs were incredibly popular.

I’m not sure why you think that. While “Money for Nothing” was Dire Straits only US #1, both “Sultans of Swing” and “Walk of Life” were top ten hits. Not to mention that “So Far Away” was a top 20 hit before “Money for Nothing” was released and their debut album had hit #2 in the US years before. So it’s not like they were complete unknowns before “Money for Nothing.”

Kind of like the way the Clash always seem to have at least one lyrical pop song one every album… I assume it was to get played on radio and make money; nothing wrong with that, of course.

Oddly I just heard the song with the offending word still in it played as bumper music on a national US radio show.

I just hope that someone rewrites Huckleberry Finn to be less hateful. Wait…

I have no idea what you are trying to prove here. I’m saying that a lot of people bought Brothers in Arms because of Money for Nothing and/or Walk of Life. However, much of the album was more like Sultans of Swing. Those who bought it thinking the whole thing was like Money would have been surprised by the more bluesy feel of the rest of the album. I didn’t say they weren’t a good band or that no one liked their other songs (I think Sultans is a better song, personally). I’m just saying that Money and Walk moved a lot of albums, and the people who bought them because of those songs were surprised by the sound.

It’s kind of like when a bunch of middle aged women were buying Blood Sugar Sex Magic because they heard Under the Bridge.