It is censorship. And it is censorship by a government-owned mass broadcaster.
This is absurd. Choosing not to play a song because listeners are unhappy with it is not censorship.
The CBC is owned by the government.
..I never said it's not owned by the government. I'm saying the action itself is not censorship. What do you think is right? They evaluate listener responses.. find that many are upset by the content of the song, and are forced to play it anyway? How does this classify as censorship?
This is pointless. Learn what censorship is.
The Canadian government doesn't dictate what the CBC plays beyond a Canadian content quota. For this to be censorship according to the traditional definition you're leaning on, the government would have needed to tell them not to play it. Their internal management, that is entirely independent from the government, chose to do it. If the government were directly involved, you'd have a point.
It's not censorship. The government hasn't banned the song. You can still buy, listen, and hear it in public. To say it's censored is a misuse of the word censor.
It 100% is not misused. Banning something or pulling it off the radio for being indecent or immoral is censorship. It is even more egregious when the decision is influenced by the government.
They're responding to their listeners.. many who voiced they don't want to hear the content of the song. It's not like this is a direct command from the government. They pulled it due to ethical complaints from people who tune in.
Considering you have a gross misunderstanding of how the CBC is governed, you're doing a disservice to the point you're making. You're basically painting the CBC (and the BBC and all similar broadcasters with hands-off content governance by association) as government propaganda machines, which is absurd.
It's not influenced by the government.
Yeah. It's coming from really fucking weird fear mongering talking points. And I've asked the same question like three times and it keeps getting ignored.
You're not making a compelling argument for this at all.
I made my arguments already. The narrowness of your definition of censorship allows for bureaucrats to run rough-shod over great works of art.
So like, anytime a song falls off the Top 100 or whatever and a station stops playing it, is that censorship?
These aren't falling out of the rotation due to a lack of popularity. It's due to a recommendation from a board which finds content objectionable.
What the fuck is being suppressed, prohibited or censored? Literally nothing is changing other than a radio station removing a song from rotation because of their listeners' complaints.
It is censorship. It's why the people who decide on objectionable material are called "censors."
You say it's not challenging, but apparently it is when the masses dont seem to understand what the song is even about. When I say challenging I mean it in terms of lyrical content and the way it makes someone feel. If you have that kind of reaction to something, maybe it's worth looking into more, trying to understand what it is. Knee jerk reactions to something that can be misconstrued isn't good for anybody. Context, and nuance is everything. But no, I guess it's easier to just cater to people's complaints and not play it all. This is what I was talking about with dumbing things down. And I agree, they shouldn't have to educate people, but the people themselves would rather sit in their own innoffensive bubbles, free from anything that challenges their way of thinking.
I am not implying they should be forced to play something. I am saying in this instance they are censoring material they deem objectionable. I believe this is censorship as I would believe radio stations pulling songs with marijuana or LSD references in the 1970s were censoring and limiting the marketability of morally objectionable work.
By your own provided definition, this is not censorship. You just made my point for me. There is literally no suppression or prohibition.
I'm not sure how pulling a work from a mass broadcast playlist due to the objectionable nature of the material as reviewed and recommended by a state owned board is not suppression, but I'm done going down this rabbit-hole.
Their decision was based off of everyday citizens who voiced concerns. Again, according to the definition you provided, this is absolutely not censorship.
I've never heard it censored, was driving yesterday and it was still uncensored on the radio.
It's a good thing this was the decision of CBC Music and not the CRTC, who are the governmental organization you deem "censors" then, eh?
One could say your definition is so broad that the station choosing not to play any song is censorship. Every artist they choose not to play is being censored.
Songs that are not played because of objectionable material are in my opinion being censored.
I heard there's a call to ban Rudolph too because of bullying. Things are getting crazy.
It's not a matter of opinion when the definition of censorship doesn't match with the context established in the OP. It's not censorship.
