Talk:Music censorship

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2022 and 16 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Janemwestcott, AdreannaRM (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Hana.irwin.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 February 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MiaRod.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Motivation

Again I disagree with the edit that has been made as I consider that it is inaccurate and not objective. The article now claims that "Songs are commonly edited for broadcast on radio and television to remove content that may be considered objectionable to an outlet's target audience...". I dispute that it does remove content that may be considered objectionable. To me it merely replaces one form of potentially objectionable content with another potentially objectionable content and does not succeed in removing content that may be, or is, considered objectionable. Indeed, as matter of fact, I object most strongly possible to what I consider to be the reprehensible and inappropriate replacement material, when played out in inappropriate environments, and, as I object to it, it is clearly capable of being objected to and is, therefore, objectionable. The "censored" replacement material carries the meaning of the swear words themselves and is, therefore, objectionable. Furthermore, I would argue that it is not about whether content may be objectionable to "an outlet's target audience" but also about ensuring that people who are not part of the target audience but whom may come across the material accidentally or unawares are also protected from offence. For example, when radio is played out in public places, such as shopping malls and leisure centres, people who are not part of the intended target audience, or who are in that inappropriate place, may hear it and be caused offence by it as I have been regularly caused in the past, only ever by the offensive "censored" versions of songs, to the point that the censored material is post-traumatic stress trigger material for me now.

I think the article should be amended to say that songs are commonly edited for broadcast on radio and television to attempt to remove content that may be considered objectionable, but not to claim that it actually does remove such content, as opposed to editing into it also objectionable and offensive content to someone, as it emphatically does not remove objectionable material to which I strongly object . I would ask whoever claims that it does remove "content that may be considered objectionable" to produce substantiated evidence, that does not rest on their own or anyone else's opinion, to prove their claim that that is what it does, as opposed to edited songs merely attempting to do so and failing completely to do so. I don't think the editing is removing content that may be objectionable to an outlet's target audience. The target audience for a particular song would, I think, be likely to be an audience that would generally not be offended by the song (although admittedly some people may be offended by it being on broadcasting rather than in a different context) but, generally, I think the target audience would not be offended - instead it is people outside of the intended target, such as myself, that are likely to be caused offence and for whom the material is being altered but has demonstrably and profoundly failed to protect me from offence - as indeed I have actually been caused on numerous occasions by the still inappropriate so-called censored material (or even more inappropriate since the 'censored' material, by being censored, is telling everyone, problematically to me as doing this makes me seriously uncomfortable, of the inappropriateness of the lyric and meaning that it fails to remove, is underlining its offensive nature, to my increased discomfort and actual offence, to everyone around). It has been, to me, highly inappropriate in meaning especially as the alleged censorship reinforces that bad meaning and heightens it.

I consider the censored material to be inappropriate and objectionable, when played in the wrong environments (those in which it causes me offence by making me seriously uncomfortable) and it is, as a matter of objective fact and not merely a matter of my "consideration" or my personal opinion, actually offensive as it has managed to cause me offence by producing the serious discomfort I have experienced regardless of anyone's opinion.

aspaa (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I second that, aspaa, but I find it weird not to have a section about editing for time, for example talking about how different songs have different versions depending on the format they are released. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

For example, the "video edit" of "I'd Do Anything For Love (But I Won't Do That)" lasts for 7 minutes 34 seconds (22 seconds longer than The Beatles' "Hey Jude") but the album version (from the album "Bat Out of Hell II: Back Into Hell) runs for a full 12 minutes. That section used to be present in previous versions of this article (when the article was still named "Censorship of music") along with a section on editing for copyright infringement. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Editing for time is not censorship. It's formatting songs for running time; this article is about censorship based on content itself. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Having read the article more, I also disagree that editing is "primarily" done to comply with broadcasting laws as not only are censored versions, depending on country, not always necessarily compliant with broadcasting regulations (which may not necessary be "law" but merely Codes), but also it may be about wider social considerations in that, if material objectionable to an outlet's target audience were to be included, it may drive the audience away and lose the broadcaster advertising revenue - therefore, arguably, it's not primarily about regulatory compliance (which is, in some places, often after the event and sometimes ineffective or not enforced) but about, supposedly, making things appropriate for people in the audience (which it may have done so for some people but not for me) and about not provoking widespread complaint and audiences switching off rather than primarily compliance with broadcasting laws. Indeed, sometimes broadcasters play "censored" versions (for example late at night to targeted audiences) even when there is no need to do so in that it would not have been in breach of the regulations to have broadcast the uncensored version. I do not think it is being done primarily for technical compliance reasons but for supposedly protecting children and supposedly protecting adults who may be caused offence, even though in my cases it has profoundly failed to achieve this, although regulatory compliance may be a reason why it is done, it is not the primary reason in my view. I therefore disagree that it is "primarily" done - Wikipedia articles should be objective and not provoke controversy about what they say like this - and I also quibble about them being referred to as "laws".

aspaa (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Music censorship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140701220958/http://riaa.com/toolsforparents.php?content_selector=parental_advisory to https://www.riaa.com/toolsforparents.php?content_selector=parental_advisory
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fgate%2Farchive%2F2001%2F03%2F23%2Fneva.DTL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I am working on this article with two of my classmates for a school project! I am going to be adding some information to the "China" section regarding a song that was scrutinized by the Chinese government for the lyrics used, and the "Decency" section, adding in a section about how religion included censorship which later impacted music lyrics. If you have any feedback please let me know. Janemwestcott (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Freshlyground

"This concept in turn is what prevented Freshlyground from performing in Zimbabwe for nearly a century."

How could a band that was active from 2002 to 2019 be prevented from performing for nearly 100 years? 24.68.71.71 (talk) 07:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Argentina.

During dictatorship in Argentina, songs by rock artists were censored for ideological reasons. Oxford has an article on this for citation. Hiddenhistoryarchives (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)