Update: Some months ago the CBSC decided, no doubt due in some measure to the outpouring of criticism for it, to repeal its decision on this song. Radio stations can once again freely air the original track.
After being continuously aired for more than 25 years, the Canadian Broadcasting Standards Council (CBSC) has declared the original lyrics of "Money for Nothing", containing the word "faggot", is now verboten. All members of the council are required to obey this ban, thus all radio stations must now air a censored version of the song.
Is the word "faggot" offensive to some? Of course! Is it "insensitive"? That depends on how and why it is used! If one reads lyrics as simply a stream of words or disparate sentences, then it is possible to take offense at a lot of words in the English language. But that is not how any text, whether song lyrics, or classic stories such as Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn, are to be read. They must be read in the context of the story or article or song as a whole, including the context of the time those words were written.
Attempting to sanitize history, whether of 25, 250, or 2,500 years ago, is to destroy it - to erase or lessen the impact of lessons that can be learned. In Twain's time, the word "nigger" was in common use, but Twain's stories, using irony, sarcasm, and humour, were all about pointing out the ignorance and stupidity underlying racism. Pretending that people did not talk that way at the time is to pretend they were not quite so ignorant - and thus not quite so racist. We need to remember that they did talk that way and the reasons they did so!
Mark Knopfler, in writing "Money for Nothing" was commenting on a conversation he overheard. He was using it to show in song what some people felt - he was exposing it much the way Twain was exposing racism. Sanitizing his lyrics loses its impact.
Defense of this decision includes citing the fact that some stations have voluntarily aired an edited version of the song for some time already, and that even Knopfler himself in concert has not used the word for some years. But that evades the issues: voluntary action versus forced censorship; and changing one's current actions versus revising history.
It is also repeatedly claimed that the CBSC is a private association (i.e. self-regulation by broadcasters)and thus it is perfectly proper for its members to be required to obey such decisions. But this is a half-truth. In fact, the operating license of many radio stations are contingent on them being a member of the CBSC. Thus such decisions have the force of law behind them.
If it were truly a voluntary association then a radio station could resign from the CBSC if it did not agree with its decisions, and continue to operate on its own terms apart from standards set by the CBSC. But in fact to do so would be to violate its government-imposed conditions and the station would have to cease operations altogether. Thus such CBSC decisions are nothing less then censorship, whether or not a particular ban was at the behest of government.
Furthermore, a genuinely voluntary council would have procedures in place for members to appeal such decisions and bring it to a vote, it would not allow a very small board to have unappealable dictatorial powers over its members!
Finally at issue is the basis of this decision - a single complaint by a single person. For the sake of avoiding offending the sensibilities of one person, every other person in the country is deprived of their right to hear the original version of this song on the radio. Once again, there are many words that can be taken offense at - should we start banning every song, movie, show, or article that uses any word that causes offense to any person? Where will that end? Might as well simply ban radio and every other type of private broadcast or media - only allow government stations instead!
