Sad sad sad.... I understand why neocon will never be played in the USA... Perhaps not even in any countries they intend to perform. Maybe one day, an artist will have no rights to decide about the content of his art. He/she will have to cut this and that to please the audience, be politically correct... But what is the right of the artist to decide what to put in his/her work? That is maybe not important any longer.

A couple of years ago we had a stunt group having sex on a direct broadcast rock show at Kvartestivalen in Kristiansand, Norway. May be the couple liked it but many others did not like it. There were kids at the show. And it was on public TV. The thing that separate us humans from the animals is that we live from a set of rules. We don't do whatever we feel like. Like kill, eat, leave dropping, take a leak or ride another male or female, any time, any place.

Cencorship is nothing else than sets of rules to make the societly work. One society have one set of rules. Others have different sets. I am surprised every time someone believe their set of rules of living is better than others. No place on earth is like paradise. No place is better than others. They are different. But not better.

I can't buy beer at concerts in Boston because the Boston Garden ask for an US ID which I don't have so that is ok for me. I don't start a campaign saying they are stupid. In Denmark my daughrer age 7 could buy a beer for me and get it opened many years ago so there are different sets of rules. In Istanbul I could not buy a beer at all in outdoor restaurants. That is ok for me. Nothing about cencorship. Just way of life.

I am not sure if the word by word traslation of any Stones song into local language would be a popular goodnight song for your young child age 6 or 8. At least I am not sure if you would tell the truth if the kid asked what the words meant. May be ok for you but not for others so you have to respect that.

And don't be surprised the Superbowl cencor Stones songs. It's a family event. A national TV broadcast. Even tits are offending. In my country they breast feed in supermarket malls, very natural, but in other cultures they hide away women and breasts. So it's different ways of living. I can't say one is better than the other.

I will leave this thead open as long as people can talk with respect and not offense, but I assume it will be closed prettyy soon, becausae somebody have to say something that is offending and not respectfulo for others. It's hard to use the brain and do social talking without getting excited, I know.

PS. Don't even try to talk about Neocon or war. I will not allow it.

Bjornulf

USA country of free people. sureeeee

Call me puritanical, but I have no problem w/ censoring a few words at a family event. At a Stones' concert, you know what you're going to see, but at the Superbowl, you have 90+ million viewers of all beliefs and backgrounds, so a few bleeped words are no big deal to me.

BV:

There is no way that censorship can be considered a "set of rules to make the society work".

We all live in a countries where freedom of speach is a constitutional right.

As to where and how we choose to exercise our freedom, this is, in most of the cases, only a matter of good or bad manners, not of criminal offences.

Back to the SB, now.

I actually follow American football since the early 80's, when it was broadcasted in Italy by the first private networks. I like it. Now, I do not want to discuss what Americans believe a "family" event should be, but for sure american football ain't no kindergarden show!

In any case, what I find awfully stupid in these situations, is if you believe that the SB is a "family" show, why on earth do you feel the need to invite the RS?

C

atip Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Call me puritanical, but I have no problem w/
> censoring a few words at a family event.

A family event? So why where the violence and blood containing commercials (especially for upcoming movies) not censored? It's soooo hypocritical.

"Don't even try to talk about Neocon or war. I will not allow it."

Come on BV... It's a Stones song. If we can talk about it without insulting each other, without fanaticism, i don't see any problem. OK, you make the rules of course. But this is my opinion.

So we are not ALLOWED to talk about Neocon? Can I still say it's a crap song?

I think he doesn't ment not the song, but the politicle discussion of the lyrics.

Nico

__________________________

NICOS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think he doesn't ment not the song, but the
> politicle discussion of the lyrics.
>
> Nico
>
>

Which is part of the song. It may even be the PURPOSE of the song: to discuss the matter!

The only problem is that it always end up in a fight.
The last time that I had a discussions the person totaly freaked out, so I stopped.

Nico

__________________________

It's different with this board, than your daily life. I could discuss Neocon with my friends, and perhaps somebody (around the table) would say something really stupid. But it would be OK, because I know that they are innocent people, and perhaps don't know that much, about that discussion.
Here on the internet there people from so many countries.
When I was at an English restaurant, as a kid, I didn't say "I would like some.....please". I said "I want......". That was rude, but I din't understand it, because I transelated directly from Norwegian. And when people here talk about how fat Mick Taylor is and stuff like that.....Perhaps they think it's OK, but I would never talk like that about a person. Not only because I feel sorry about the person, but I would feel like an idiot to be so cynical and dumb. For instance I DON'T like R.E.M. But I wouldn't mention that he was fat, (if he was, I know he isn't).

I watched the Super Bowl with my family last night (including neighbours, kids etc.) . When SMU kicked in I turned to my wife and bet her that they would sensor "make a dead man come". I was right and considering the family audience I totally agree.

I also had a good laugh to myself as I knew this Board would up in a knot.....


Remember guys, the 60's and 70's are over, and as a father of young kids, I'm happy there's some things they can learn on their own.........


(In my opinion)

I understand it - it's not that big a deal. Kids are listening to it so I guess (my opinion only) that we should at least maintain a certain level of decency - RNR or not.
I have no idea what the viewing audience would have been but I'm guessing hundreds of millions would have been watching the game and the Stones.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean we have to abuse that freedom. With any freedom comes restriction. And that's not really a bad thing. It's not like it's the Stones being singled out - it would have been applied to any act/artist in this situation.

I've no probs with Stones lyrics because I see (hear) them in which the context of their use. Plenty of people however think and feel otherwise.

I can't say I'd have my 6 year girl (not that I have one) listening to "@#$%&" - so eliminating the odd profanity from the half time spectacle at a widely viewed sports game isn't any deal as far as I'm concerned.
Nor is it the Stones selling out.

Only thing that bugged me was the media here in Perth (Western Australia) - all they crapped on about was the Stones being 'bad boys' again cos their songs had to be cencored at a sports game that most 20 million Australians could not care less about.

Would have been nice if they'd reported more on the Stones' performance - they certainly copped more airtime than the game itself.

In response (finally) to the point of the thread - no I don't think it's a way to control artists or anybody else for that matter.
I just see it as people, while still wanting to have themselves and others to be basically free to express their views, not wanting what most (and I would hope all) consider a right - ie self expression - abused.

kyle m

Have you ever lent somebody $20 and never seen them again? It was probably worth it.

The US and censorship, well what about Europe and censorship? Its the same dear.

LA FORUM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The US and censorship, well what about Europe and
> censorship? Its the same dear.
>
> You're all forgiven! And now...


No, it's not. The Stones at the Superbowl was not cencored for instance...

Not the same in Europe? Thats right....in France little Muslim girls cant wear veils over their heads as prescibed by their faith when they go to school....

Guys you're straying into bagging countries/continents and/or faiths, at the very least you're comparing.
And yet again a decent thread may decline into a political pissing contest.

Discuss for sure but please don't start with the

> "The US and censorship, well what about Europe and censorship?

or

> "Not the same in Europe? Thats right....in France little Muslim girls cant wear veils over their heads as prescibed by their faith when they go to school...."

valid points or not, the thread is not directly about this.

Total umlimited freedom of speech does not exist anywhere on Mother Earth.

It's limited by rules of law, rules set up by the employers, or by "unwritten law".

Limits of freedom of speech are never constant. The limits are moved every day.

When freedom of speech is limited it can be labelled "censorship" or it can be regarded as showing respect for someone. This will always be a never-ending discussion. At least in a more "free" society. As well as here in this forum, where there has been some really sick examples of so-called total free speech.

Imo the censorship last night was/is ridiculous, but in a way it's a funny as well.
After all these years.

Censorship/Limits of free speech are perhaps different in Europe and USA. But it's also very different among European countries.

PS Bjørnulf : Selling of beer/alcohol is prohibited in Denmark to people under 16 years of age. But perhaps someone understands the need of desperate Norwegians, who have to pay fortunes for these common things...

In the first place, kids would NOT have known the implication of the word " COCK" used in Rough Justice because the way it's written, it means rooster! In " Start Me Up" it would hardly have been noticed by NON Stones Fans! The censorship in this case was absurd! TOTALLY RIDICULOUS! It was more noticeable the way it was done, with NO words sung! You get to fill in the blanks, and for those that don't KNOW the words they either guessed and filled in the blank, maybe using an even more " offensive" word! Americans ARE truly weird in what they find offensive, in a society so full of filth!

For those railing against censorship, perhaps the NFL will host NWA next year.

You have the freedom to say anything you like but you don't have the freedom to offend. I am never impressed by big-mouth people who think their rights are bigger than other people's feelings.

Bjornulf

First off, the Stones performing on the Super Bowl is not a 'right', it's a 'privilege'. By allowing the censorship, or at least being complicit with it, the Stones showed respect for the values of the Superbowl producers, which reflect the general values of mainstream American. Freedom of speech is great, but so is responsibility. If you can't take responsibility for yourself and your actions, then who is going to do it for you? The government? The corporations? The powers that be?

And the Stones themselves practice a similar form of 'censorship'-- by not allowing their opening bands to play any of their songs!

The Stones don't suffer from censorship at the Super Bowl. How are they being deprived of their voice? The Rolling Stones have plenty of media outlets to get their message out to millions (if not billions) of people. REAL censorship is when you can't speak publicly for fear of losing your life, health, freedom, property, etc.

TOTALLY unlimited freedom of speech exists only if you go out and find yourself a psychiatrist, then you can lay on his couch and say whatever comes to mind.
He is very unlikely to take any offence whatsoever at anything you may say,no matter how crude, rude or insulting, but he is also very likely to charge you several hundred pounds per hour for the immense privilege.....

Changing one or two lines in a Stones lyric because there are kiddies watching, is hardly censorship in my book.....

Art has challenged society rules ever since the first caveman painted a deer on the roof of his cage. The first censor was probably that caveman's wife ("Do you HAVE to draw on the walls???")...
Look at it this way: an 18 certificate movie may be released for showing during a flight, but crucial risque bits will be cut out...it's exactly the same with the Stones lyrics, why get your knickers into a twist about it?

Whoever still thinks that the Stones are some politically active group wanting to get a message across about the evils of society, ought to do an urgent reality-check. And try to get out more...

Just for curiosity’s sake – why would playing the Superbowl be a privilage? I don’t see it as a right, but why a privilage? Wouldn’t playing at the Olympics be a privilage? Or perhaps the World Cup? An event where the whole world is participating and watching? The Superbowl is just another football game (and this year it was really nothing special).

Like Debra said, young people wouldn’t have gotten the reference to “cock” in rough justice and, in all honesty, I didn’t hear the “dead man cum” part in Start Me Up for the longest time in all the years I’ve been listening to the stones. Maybe it was because I wasn’t purposefully listening for stuff like that.

And the “values” of the Superbowl producers? I can imagine that, if the whole Janet Jackson debacle hadn’t had happened a few years back, the producers wouldn’t have even thought of censoring the Super Bowl. It has nothing to do with “values.” ABC just didn’t want to get fined thousands of dollars again.

I’ve come to learn that “mainstream America” has no set values. Is it a negative characteristic? Hell no – it’s actually a very positive characteristic. There’s no way to pigeonhole Americans.

But I don’t think America should hide the fact that hard-core porn earns more than Hollywood’s domestic box office sales or that marijuana is the USA’s largest cash crop. I don’t think Americans should pretend they’re something else, even going so far as to condemn others for behavior they secretly indulge in. In Germany there’s a word for such types of people- “scheinheilig.” Like it was in my father’s house, “do as I say and not as I do.”

Anways, most people probably wouldn’t have even heard the sexual references in the songs. The only ones who would have heard them were the ones specifically looking and listening for them – the real perverts. I mean, it’s not like they had subtitles, reminding us all that it was indeed “cum” and not “come.” The world, when spelled differently, does have a very different meaning.

Anyways, that’s all I have at the moment. Back to your regularly scheduled “and family oriented” programming.

Peace,

Skydog

Sorry, I mean't to say, "America shouldn't hide the fact . . ." in paragraph 5. Sorry about forgetting the negative.

americans are funny, we are on 2006!!!, come on!, its ok to censure a few words at super bowl, i do agree, a lot of kids see it, but what about Live Licks?, do you remember?, i think america should grow as society....

Mick has even said he was fine with changing the lyrics on LSTNT back on the Ed Sullivan show because it helped to sell more albums.