Is it really worth it?

[shoop]

Anybody who "glorifies violence" is worse than someone who has literally encouraged people to kill innocent civilians. wtf?

IMV, anyone who glorifies crime is worse than a radical muslim.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear shoop,

Where does it stop? Where do you step in and tell me what I can listen to?

You are right, censorship is an ugly thing. If you really want to hear his message, you probably can, with or without his coming to Canada. Just like the KKK, you can visit their website if you want. (I can even post it for you, and others like it, if you wish) I don't think the KKK should be able to hold rallies and cross-burnings under the banner of 'free-speech' though. It is, in it's way, a freedom of speech.

However, the extreme of free speech (and the absence of rules) is anarchy, and I believe that anarchy is something to be avoided, even if it hs to be through legislation. Where do I draw the line? That is a toughie. Why should my personal choice or moral compass affect you? Again, a tough one. That would depend on whether or not you advocate this sort of thing.

[Riverwind]

Anybody who "glorifies violence" is worse than someone who has literally encouraged people to kill innocent civilians. wtf?

What do you think "glorifies violance" means? It means he advocates injury and murder of innocent civilians. You cannot use the argument that most people listening to this guy's music will not resort to a life of crime because most people listening to a radical cleric calling for terrorist attacks will not become terrorists.

So which is it - do you believe that everyone should be allowed to say whatever they want regardless of the consequences to society or do you believe that some people with particularily offensive views promoting violance should be banned for the good of the greater society?

[shoop]

It should affect me only when it is demonstrably obvious that doing so is in the best interest of society. I don't think you can say that about 50 cent.

However, the extreme of free speech (and the absence of rules) is anarchy, and I believe that anarchy is something to be avoided, even if it hs to be through legislation. Where do I draw the line? That is a toughie. Why should my personal choice or moral compass affect you? Again, a tough one. That would depend on whether or not you advocate this sort of thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Riverwind]

It should affect me only when it is demonstrably obvious that doing so is in the best interest of society. I don't think you can say that about 50 cent.

How many murders have their been in the black community in Toronto in the last while? How many are unsolved because the blacks in community refuse to co-operate with police? Seems to me that when life imitates art then you need to take a closer look at the art.

[shoop]

There are ways to deal with the problem that don't infringe on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Are there any liberals left in the Liberal Canada of Party?

How many murders have their been in the black community in Toronto in the last while? How many are unsolved because the blacks in community refuse to co-operate with police? Seems to me that when life imitates art then you need to take a closer look at the art.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Canuck E Stan]

Remember this and how society at the time reacted to their music and their image?

Elvis,Jerry Lee Lewis,Little Richard- the 50's

Rolling Stones(bad boys of rock),Beatles(more popular than Jesus) Jim Morrison(masterbating on stage)-60's

Alice Cooper,Heavy Metal music(the devil's music),the Clash,Sex Pistols -70's

Madonna,Punk Rockers,Boy George-80's

Marlyn Manson,Red Hot Chili Peppers,Nirvana,,Emminem,Dr.Dre,Mr.Big,Tupac Shakur,gangsta rap-90's

In the new millenium, if you probably think Rap music is not music but disgusting noise(sorta like what our parents thought about our taste in music way back when),then you're probably out of touch with today's popular music.

Rock and roll is not what you think it is, and any 15 year old could give you a lesson in the differences in todays music types that would amaze you.

Rock and roll is not the same.

Here's the different types of rock music the kids are listening to today:

Roots-rock,Pop,Hardcore,Foxcore,funk-punk,trip-hop, glitch,experimental,digitalpop,blackmetal,Stoner-rock,Prog-rock,Psychedelic,Garage-rock,Alternative-rock, Hip-hop, jungle,Grunge,Gothic rock,Industrial metal,Roots-rock,Psychedelic pop,Power-pop,Folk-pop,Nu-metal,industrial-metal, digital folk,Prog-rock, Electronica,lo-firoots,Power-pop,Post-rock,Surf,Slocore/folk-pop,Electroclash,folktronica),avant-rock,Drum'n'bass,super-doom,Grindcore death-metal,alt-country,stoner,glitch electronica,Disco-punk,Dance music,Instrumental,emo-pop,Noise-rock,Industrial music, ambient,New generation,Acoustic revival,Chamber rock,dream-pop,black metal,garage-blues, slocore,neoclassical, Ska,post-hardcore,baroque pop.

So trying to stop 50 Cent from coming into Canada because of his music will do nothing to stop his popularity or stop guns from coming across the border or stopping gangs from using them.Society tried to change our music and it didn't work and we won't change today's generation's music either.

Nothing changes only the players.

*

[Riverwind]

Remember this and how society at the time reacted to their music and their image?

Would you be so sanguine if about a Iranian group singing songs calling for the destruction of Isreal and America? At some point we have to put our foot down. For me, that point starts when the songs promote a culture of crime and shooting cops. There is a big difference between singing about the joys of LSD and singing about the joys of killing people.

[Canuck E Stan]

Remember this and how society at the time reacted to their music and their image?

Would you be so sanguine if about a Iranian group singing songs calling for the destruction of Isreal and America? At some point we have to put our foot down. For me, that point starts when the songs promote a culture of crime and shooting cops. There is a big difference between singing about the joys of LSD and singing about the joys of killing people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why stop there? Ban movies ,video games,TV,books,anything that you don't think is acceptable.

Next year the guy will be a has been and someone else will take his place with a different tune.

The times they are a'changin.

[Yaro]

Are you reallly that arrogant?

If we don't agree with the LPCs proposed timing for the election we aren't "bright"?

That is the kind of ignorance that will turn off the population like 1984. Thanks. 

Well for starters, Yes, Yes I am. However that’s not really what I said which was, what I said was that anyone who doesn't want them to beat on each other over the Gomery report findings before the next election isn't very bright. But in essence what you say is true, if you don't agree with me you’re clearly not very bright.

As for relating my arrogance to the liberal party, that’s just silly. I may seem like a liberal to some of the more extreme right wingers but the truth is I just end up defending them from moronic statements because that’s the party that tends to have moronic statements made about them right now. Just like my position on communism, I’m certainly no communist but I end up defending it, not because I believe it’s good or right but because most of the comments made about it are rather outlandish.

They are not mutually exclusive, really. It really depends, mind you, on which definition of 'communism' you use. Most people do immediately think of the 'Marxism-Bastardized-By-Lenin form' though, I'll have to admit.

Communism is purely an economic philosophy; it is the philosophy of a completely centrally controlled economy. It is in no way in conflict with democracy on any level. Even the Leninist bastardization of communism was a completely economic shift (the inclusion of limited capitalism). If anything communism lends itself rather well to democracy.

Communism and democracy are not mutually exclusive. A one party state can also be a democracy - it is one of the six types of democracy identified by Professor McPherson in his Massey Lectures. The criterion is the extent of participation in the party.

There’s nothing innate to communism that necessitates a one party system however. There is also not necessarily a contradiction between a one party system and a democracy because there is simply no difference between a one party system and a no party system if the party in question has no innate leaning.

The degeneration does not invalidate the possibility of democracy. It merely shows that one party democracy can slide more easily into something else: something that democracies have also experienced.

Most definitely, one party systems (and wholly/strongly centrally controlled systems in general) tend to degenerate rather quickly. However that of course raises the question is a no party system maintainable at all?

However, the extreme of free speech (and the absence of rules) is anarchy, and I believe that anarchy is something to be avoided, even if it hs to be through legislation. Where do I draw the line? That is a toughie. Why should my personal choice or moral compass affect you? Again, a tough one. That would depend on whether or not you advocate this sort of thing.

People tend to extend the "yelling fire in a theater" example well beyond its natural form and this is a good example of it. Limits on freedom of speech should be limited to those of absolute necessity, the right of an individual to believe and express a belief in whatever they wish is so central to a free society that I really don't understand how something as far removed from the kind of direct danger that "fire in a theater" proposes as a litmus that its hard to make the rational link and certainly not worthy of limiting.

There are plenty of things that people say that I don't like, and there are no doubt plenty of things that I say that other people don't like and if the limiting factor is going to be a democratically determined line I really don't see how minority rights can possibly be protected, on this issue or quite frankly on a host of others.

So which is it - do you believe that everyone should be allowed to say whatever they want regardless of the consequences to society or do you believe that some people with particularily offensive views promoting violance should be banned for the good of the greater society?

Say virtually whatever they want, scream it from the mountain tops. But maybe it’s just me that prefers my nut jobs out in the open where I can keep an eye on them.

How many murders have their been in the black community in Toronto in the last while? How many are unsolved because the blacks in community refuse to co-operate with police? Seems to me that when life imitates art then you need to take a closer look at the art.

Well I would say its more a case of art imitating life but that’s really not of consequence, when you are going to deal with a problem and this is a good example, attack the problem not the symptom.

Would you be so sanguine if about a Iranian group singing songs calling for the destruction of Isreal and America? At some point we have to put our foot down. For me, that point starts when the songs promote a culture of crime and shooting cops. There is a big difference between singing about the joys of LSD and singing about the joys of killing people.

Yes, once again deal with the problem of why people would listen to such a message instead of simply encouraging an underground mentality in them.

[Riverwind]

Why stop there? Ban movies ,video games,TV,books,anything that you don't think is acceptable.

If you feel that an Iranian group singing about holy war should be free to say whatever they like then I will agree that freedom of expression for all is the best way to go. If you believe the Iranian group should be banned then my response is Fitty Cent should also be banned because his music is a least as objectionable as that of muslim extremists. So which is it - freedom of expression or selective censorship for only those things that offend your sensibilities?

[PocketRocket]

With the internet being what it is, even talking about banning any form of music is ludicrous.

Kids will listen to whatever they want to hear, and if they can't get it in the stores, they will find it online.

Likewise the artists; if the stores are not allowed to carry their music, the "artists" will simply put it online.

Any sort of "ban" would simply play into their hands; "Look at this, they've banned my tunes, hear 'em here, at www.mygarbagetunes.whatever."

Kids simply FLOCK to banned stuff.

One way to virtually guarantee a new album release going platinum is to put one of those sticky "parental advisory" labels on the cover.

A ban would work even better to guarantee sales.

Best thing to do is ignore them and hope they'll go away.

Better yet, if parents start listening to the same tunes in front of their kids, whilst dancing badly and saying stuff like "50 Cents is SO cool", most kids will immediately be turned off from listening to him.

After all, what ostensibly rebellious kid wants to listen to the same stuff as his parents???

[kimmy]

I am in agreement with those who say that keeping "50 Cent" out of Canada will only add to his appeal with the segment of the populace that buys his products (I believe he's now not just a recording artist, but also a line of clothes and a video game as well.)

This is, after all, a guy who has turned the fact that he was once shot into a lucrative career. Banning him from entering the country would just add that much more to his "street cred."

"Whitey banned Fiddy because they all afraid of what he sayin, dawg!"

I would assume that his next record would sell 5 times his usual volume in this country. I'd expect his record label would capitalize on the infamy by releasing a special EP called "Banned in Canada" that would sell zillions here. Unless, of course, one were to also ban him from selling records, videos, and other even more draconian measures that go far beyond simply issuing this dumb-ass a performers visa.

-k