Censorship in any form is frightening.

 The authority to control our intellectual freedoms is a powerful tool, one that despite its stated intention to protect against hurtful words and images may actually stifle the very culture that it is mandated to protect.

 It's a slippery slope, one that can lead to bitter confrontations and societal divisions that often do more harm than the "offending" words or images. When government-run regulatory boards and agencies have the power to control the message, then a new question arises - at what point does censorship become the lesser of two evils?

 It's a serious debate, indeed, and one that has been raging for decades. Certain words - even those freely used in the past - have no place in modern society. Many words are hurtful and carry such hate and anger that they should be stricken from our modern language. However, the debate arises when we attempt to go back and sanitize history. Case in point is the recent battle that took place over attempts to drop the "N" word from any future reprints of "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn."

 The book, written by Mark Twain and first published in the United States in February 1885, is considered one of the greatest American novels of all time and when it was written the offensive word was readily used and accepted. However, today most of us agree that not only is it offensive, but its message is so full of hatred that it should no longer be used.

 The question is, should we go back and alter one of the greatest works of literature ever created? Many say yes, but just as many so no. In fact, there is the valid argument that keeping the offending word in its context allows future generations to debate and understand the impact of this word.

 The book, as a teaching tool, provides an excellent opportunity for new generations to learn about a time in history that has shaped society as we know it today. It's a question for which there is no simple solution and it's a good example of where the issue of censorship becomes cloudy.

 And then, along comes the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC), which, earlier this month, ruled that the 1980s song "Money for Nothing" by the British rock band Dire Straits is unacceptable for play on Canadian radio. In its decision, the council says the song contravenes the human rights clauses of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters' Code of Ethics and Equitable Portrayal Code.

 The issue arose last year when a listener (only one) to a radio station in St. John's, Newfoundland, complained the song contains three instances of the word "faggot" and is thus discriminatory to gays. The broadcaster argued that the song had been played countless times since its release almost three decades ago. However, a council panel concluded that the word, even if once acceptable, has evolved to become unacceptable in most circumstances. The panel ruled the song could be broadcast if suitably edited, basically if the offending word was bleeped out.

 Now let's all agree that this debate pales in comparison to that surrounding the classic piece of literature penned by Mark Twain over a century and a half ago, but we can draw some parallels on some levels. Today, both words are offensive and are filled with hate. Both words are used to incite violence against a specific target group of people and both were freely used at a time before our society said it was not okay to do so. Today, we accept that such ignorance doesn't make it right, but we can't erase the past, even the dark chapters.

 However, in this recent case, the offending word must be considered in its context as the song is written from the perspective of a bigot. Here, context is everything and taken out of context many words are offensive. It can be argued that there are many other words in our language that offend someone, some of the time. "Fatty," for example, is an offensive word that is often used to attack and berate overweight people. As a person who has struggled with a weight issue all my life, I could argue that the word should be stricken from everyday use, but that isn't reasonable.

advertisement

 Not to undermine the concerns of this individual who was so offended by the word in the song that he would lodge a formal complaint, but when do we say enough already? Even some gay rights activists argue that the ruling goes too far and actually hurts their cause as it further engrains stereotypes and fosters hatred. While some may not like the use of the word, the song is clearly a satirical look at an average working guy who's envious of pop stars who make millions for their "talents."

 Halifax-based Q104 program director J.C. Douglas hit the nail on the head when he said, "The character that the songwriters drew is reminiscent of Archie Bunker, one of the great fictional characters of our time, and one who illustrated how completely absurd a bigot can be. To deny radio the right to reveal that character, warts and all, is a tragic error in judgment and puts the CBSC on the slippery slope to censorship."

 Programming should be judged on the basis of whether it meets community standards, and when a song has been played for 25 years without incident, it meets community standards. Beyond that, it's about freedom of expression. When we start censoring the songs we listen to, the books we read and the television shows we watch, then we begin to threaten our intellectual freedoms.

 The bottom line is that we simply cannot change history. We won't know how far we've come as a society if we can't talk about where we've been.

 E-mail me: Editorial@southshorenow.ca

posted on 01/25/11