<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: BBC backs down in bigotry row</title>
	<atom:link href="http://outfrontblog.com/2007/12/bbc-backs-down-in-bigotry-row.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://outfrontblog.com/2007/12/bbc-backs-down-in-bigotry-row.html</link>
	<description>The Full Spectrum of LGBT Communications</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 18:45:36 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eddy</title>
		<link>http://outfrontblog.com/2007/12/bbc-backs-down-in-bigotry-row.html/comment-page-1#comment-363</link>
		<dc:creator>Eddy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:13:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://outfrontblog.com/2007/12/bbc-backs-down-in-bigotry-row/#comment-363</guid>
		<description>Hi Tony
I do sympathize with your point of view given that I am a libertarian, and as such find censorship a very difficult subject to deal with sometimes.
My instinct is that free speech is paramount but I wish it were that simple.
I presume you would accept that lyrics that incite homophobic violence are not acceptable. If not, then you clearly think that anything goes and I respect that stance.
I agree that this use of the word &quot;faggot&quot; is used in a different context but it is still, contrary to what Radio 1 say, used as a term of abuse in the song.
Would the BBC accept similarly abusive derogatory terms for other minority groups on the basis of artistic freedom? I very much doubt it.
I do not think the BBC should be forced to censor this word, I just think it has a responsibility to self-censor to respect its audience who are young and may not be able to make the distinction based on the context. I understand the argument that it&#039;s use was in a hibernian dialect meaning something else and not referring to sexuality but i think that will be lost of most listeners.
Do you think it is acceptable for someone to shout &quot;faggot&quot; at someone in the street? What if someone argued that they didn&#039;t mean it in a homophobic way, would that be ok?
Although Radio 2 has played it unedited, other broadcasters have decided to take the option of removing it including MTV.
For me this is not about censorship it is about moving on as a society and deciding that certain words and certain actions are unacceptable whatever their context. They should not be banned full stop but those who use them or passively condone them should be critized for doing so.
I struggle with this issue and I appreciate your perspective. I wish i could take a purely libertarian position but I reluctantly felt unable to do so.
Eddy
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Tony<br />
I do sympathize with your point of view given that I am a libertarian, and as such find censorship a very difficult subject to deal with sometimes.<br />
My instinct is that free speech is paramount but I wish it were that simple.<br />
I presume you would accept that lyrics that incite homophobic violence are not acceptable. If not, then you clearly think that anything goes and I respect that stance.<br />
I agree that this use of the word &#8220;faggot&#8221; is used in a different context but it is still, contrary to what Radio 1 say, used as a term of abuse in the song.<br />
Would the BBC accept similarly abusive derogatory terms for other minority groups on the basis of artistic freedom? I very much doubt it.<br />
I do not think the BBC should be forced to censor this word, I just think it has a responsibility to self-censor to respect its audience who are young and may not be able to make the distinction based on the context. I understand the argument that it&#8217;s use was in a hibernian dialect meaning something else and not referring to sexuality but i think that will be lost of most listeners.<br />
Do you think it is acceptable for someone to shout &#8220;faggot&#8221; at someone in the street? What if someone argued that they didn&#8217;t mean it in a homophobic way, would that be ok?<br />
Although Radio 2 has played it unedited, other broadcasters have decided to take the option of removing it including MTV.<br />
For me this is not about censorship it is about moving on as a society and deciding that certain words and certain actions are unacceptable whatever their context. They should not be banned full stop but those who use them or passively condone them should be critized for doing so.<br />
I struggle with this issue and I appreciate your perspective. I wish i could take a purely libertarian position but I reluctantly felt unable to do so.<br />
Eddy</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tony</title>
		<link>http://outfrontblog.com/2007/12/bbc-backs-down-in-bigotry-row.html/comment-page-1#comment-362</link>
		<dc:creator>tony</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:38:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://outfrontblog.com/2007/12/bbc-backs-down-in-bigotry-row/#comment-362</guid>
		<description>So what is next Eddy?
Why not have a go censoring The Merchant of Venice - some insulting stuff about Jews in there - surely some of that should be cut, just so no one gets offended.
After all, that is the world you seem to want to live in - a beige existence where no one is ever shocked, challenged or offended.
Why don&#039;t we emulate your idol Thomas Bowdler and reduce all art down to something that will not offend anyone.
Censorship is always wrong.
The decision taken by Radio 1 was laughable - it was not in response to viewer complaints, it was some person with clearly far too much time in their hands fretting about the possible offence that has never been caused.
You seem to have little understanding of the context in which the word was used.
The difference between a DJ and a record should be blindingly obvious to anyone.
Chris Moyles is an employee and representative of the BBC.
The Pogues are artists and free to express themselves any way they want.
If the BBC do not like their songs, they should just not play them.
Trying to bleep out a word or two is a ridiculous way to behave.
Oh, and BBC Radio 2 were going to continue playing the song without any alterations.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So what is next Eddy?<br />
Why not have a go censoring The Merchant of Venice &#8211; some insulting stuff about Jews in there &#8211; surely some of that should be cut, just so no one gets offended.<br />
After all, that is the world you seem to want to live in &#8211; a beige existence where no one is ever shocked, challenged or offended.<br />
Why don&#8217;t we emulate your idol Thomas Bowdler and reduce all art down to something that will not offend anyone.<br />
Censorship is always wrong.<br />
The decision taken by Radio 1 was laughable &#8211; it was not in response to viewer complaints, it was some person with clearly far too much time in their hands fretting about the possible offence that has never been caused.<br />
You seem to have little understanding of the context in which the word was used.<br />
The difference between a DJ and a record should be blindingly obvious to anyone.<br />
Chris Moyles is an employee and representative of the BBC.<br />
The Pogues are artists and free to express themselves any way they want.<br />
If the BBC do not like their songs, they should just not play them.<br />
Trying to bleep out a word or two is a ridiculous way to behave.<br />
Oh, and BBC Radio 2 were going to continue playing the song without any alterations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eddy</title>
		<link>http://outfrontblog.com/2007/12/bbc-backs-down-in-bigotry-row.html/comment-page-1#comment-361</link>
		<dc:creator>Eddy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:34:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://outfrontblog.com/2007/12/bbc-backs-down-in-bigotry-row/#comment-361</guid>
		<description>Thanks for your thoughts Mark.
I totally agree and read about the incident in New Zealand recently. It&#039;s actually very similar to the use of the word by Radio 1 DJ Chris Moyles to describe a ringtone in a derogatory fashion for which the BBC did not apologize.
I also agree that the &quot;political correctness gone mad&quot; argument is used far too often by those who simply want to defend disrespectful or even abusive behavior.
Happy holidays!
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for your thoughts Mark.<br />
I totally agree and read about the incident in New Zealand recently. It&#8217;s actually very similar to the use of the word by Radio 1 DJ Chris Moyles to describe a ringtone in a derogatory fashion for which the BBC did not apologize.<br />
I also agree that the &#8220;political correctness gone mad&#8221; argument is used far too often by those who simply want to defend disrespectful or even abusive behavior.<br />
Happy holidays!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Proffit</title>
		<link>http://outfrontblog.com/2007/12/bbc-backs-down-in-bigotry-row.html/comment-page-1#comment-360</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Proffit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:25:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://outfrontblog.com/2007/12/bbc-backs-down-in-bigotry-row/#comment-360</guid>
		<description>It is always an interesting debate about the use of words and language.
I always find a way to test if something is offensive or not is to replace the offensive word with another ethnic group say war veterans, women, indigenous people, disabled people, etc.
This incident in the UK reflects an incident in New Zealand where a women used the word gay to mean crappy. She posted on here Bebo site:
&quot;well work sucks, guyfawkes are coming up, and we have to close @ midnight, which is totally gay.. like the frickn management there&quot;
She was fired from her job over this incident (probably not just this however).
As for political correctness in my opinion once a person reaches for the PC argument they have lost all credibility and have no substantive argument.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is always an interesting debate about the use of words and language.<br />
I always find a way to test if something is offensive or not is to replace the offensive word with another ethnic group say war veterans, women, indigenous people, disabled people, etc.<br />
This incident in the UK reflects an incident in New Zealand where a women used the word gay to mean crappy. She posted on here Bebo site:<br />
&#8220;well work sucks, guyfawkes are coming up, and we have to close @ midnight, which is totally gay.. like the frickn management there&#8221;<br />
She was fired from her job over this incident (probably not just this however).<br />
As for political correctness in my opinion once a person reaches for the PC argument they have lost all credibility and have no substantive argument.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

