http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brendan_oneill/2007/12/bbc_pogue_mahone.html

You’re a still small voice of reason sometimes.

The link below is a good summary of the topic. Happily the BBC has now changed its mind (if it had one in the first place). It also pertains to Brendan O’Neill’s original article.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2007/12/twenty_years_after_it_was.html

As an addendum to this story ( and by the way I think direct incitements to murder should attract very careful attention) the BBC has decided in its wisdom to censor the lyrics of the Christmas classic ‘Fairytale of New York’ by The Pogues and Kirsty McColl.

Apparently the problem is the use of the term ‘faggot’ in the scripted diatribe of McColl’s character in the duet. It may apparently cause distress to any gay listeners who haven’t been aware of the term being used when the song has been played something upwards of a billion times in the past twenty years since its release.

I will post a link to this nonsense when I can shake off my weary disbelief and the sheer embarrassment that my countrymen could be such prissy little wankers (oops).

——————

I’ll agree that I overstated the point at the beginning. And I’m aware that laws have been made which disagree with my position.

You say that lyrics are a form of communication, and that lyrics in a song should be treated the same way in this regard as a sentence in a speech.

To me that’s a little dogmatic; tantamount to saying that what the bible says in Genesis should be treated the same way as what it says in Acts. The purpose of a lyric is different than the purpose of a speech. It’s been alleged that Ian Paisley’s speeches have incited violence in the past. (I’d be interested to know if you support that assessment.)

Whether or not that’s right, I think clear that if a speaker gives a speech in which he says that we should “Hang lesbians with a long piece of rope”, it should be treated entirely differently than the lyric of a song, which often cannot be read literally, in the way that readers here appear to want to read it.
I agree that, if it’s read literally, that particular sentiment is a clear incitement to violence. I don’t think ANY piece of music can be heard that way. Did Tina Turner really want to roll on a river? For that matter, did she really leave a good job in the city, working for the Man every night and day? Clean plates in Memphis? Pump tane in New Orleans? It’s art. It may not be very nice art, but I’m simply not convinced that the dynamic of this thing operates thus:

1) Recording artist creates song
2) Vulnerable youth hears lyric “Hang chi chi gal wid a long piece of rope”
3) Vulnerable youth finds his violent feelings toward gay people substantiated
4) Vulnerable youth gets together with friends and finds a gay guy to beat.

I find most of these lyrics impossible to understand in any case. (Perhaps if you’re sure that Beenie Man hates gay people you could explain this lyric: “I want a dude who will do me in the van…”) Maybe thinking people like you and I just shouldn’t try to listen to and interpret rap music! It’s its own art form, and not exactly supposed to be analysed. (It’s supposed to be blared from the boom boxes of annoying teenagers.)

On your question of whether I agree with Will that it should be illegal for record stores to stock this Beenie Man CD, no - I disagree. If someone issues a spoken word album in which there’s a clear incitement to violence… something along the lines of “We hate X. I think the time has come to send X a message. Pick up your arms….” etc., then I’d be happy to call it incitement and we can talk about how to deal with that appropriately in law. But banning this or that strikes me as entirely the wrong way to go about such things.

Welcome. You make an allegation! I know Crawley well and wouldn’t knowingly misrepresent his position.

I reread my first paragraph in light of your comment: you have a point on my use of phrasing, which gave the impression that the argument was about straightforward homophobic lyrics.

I’ve now altered my sentence to reflect the difference. Thanks for correcting me.