Universities ban Blurred Lines on campuses around UK - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Protocol7;42255350]Hey, check this out "if you dislike some song, nobody makes you listen to it" The song is shit and the meaning is terrible but it's wasted effort and time banning it, and banning music, no matter how shitty, is a very slippery slope.[/QUOTE] it just means it's not going to be permissible to play at fucking public events lmao. if it's being played at a public event, then yes, someone is making you listen to it

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;42255737]it just means it's not going to be permissible to play at fucking public events lmao. if it's being played at a public event, then yes, someone is making you listen to it[/QUOTE] you don't have go to fucking public events lmao

Everyone in here complaining about censorship doesn't know what censorship is. Refusing to play a song at your own event, hosted by you, isn't censorship. Just like how me not letting you play taylor swift in my car isn't censorship. What about the millions and millions of other songs not being played at these events? Are those being "censored" too?

Can I still play this tho [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpNZlgalYtM&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DhpNZlgalYtM&app=desktop[/media] That's the real important question

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;42255737]it just means it's not going to be permissible to play at fucking public events lmao. if it's being played at a public event, then yes, someone is making you listen to it[/QUOTE] If so many people at the university are offended by the song then I doubt anyone would choose to play it at public events in the first place, especially seeing as these events aren't going to be organised by random students on their own I see no need in an actual ban

[QUOTE=TheHydra;42255406]it's a song about how a drunk girl grabbing him is a "blurred line" of consent and that she totally wants it. that's why people are upset over it. it's a song promoting the idea that drunk girls are asking for it.[/QUOTE] Wow, I did not realize that was a direct message in the song. I just noticed the lovely lines like "I know you want it" and "I'll give you something big enough to tear your ass in two". How did this get past the production managers?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;42255775]Everyone in here complaining about censorship doesn't know what censorship is. Refusing to play a song at your own event, hosted by you, isn't censorship. Just like how me not letting you play taylor swift in my car isn't censorship. What about the millions and millions of other songs not being played at these events? Are those being "censored" too?[/QUOTE] When the "you" you're talking about is the government the rules change a bit.

[quote]Cal Reid, campus president at the University of the West of Scotland, says: "Blurred Lines has been banned at our university. The song has been suspended in all student union bars until it is taken to student council for the students to make a final decision."[/quote] people need to read the article lol and lol at the people thinking not allowing a song that promotes rape will magically lead to censoring something important

[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;42255981]I think a lot of people don't know what actual censorship is. If I went into your neighborhood, set up some speakers, and played an audio recording of Woody's got Wood at full blast could I cry censorship if you wanted me to stop? [/QUOTE] Banning public disturbances in neighborhoods =/= censorship. People would also stop you from playing Mary Had a Little Lamb loudly in a neighborhood. This would be like me telling you that you weren't allowed to play "Woody's got Wood" in your own home during your own party.

[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;42256106]I'm pretty sure they banned it on their own property.[/QUOTE] Public universities are public property. The rules for government are different than the rules for private entities.

People in Ancient Greece strolled around naked and fucked all the time. Egyptians strolled around naked and fucked all the time. But nope, good 'Christian values man' comes along at some point, and suddenly boobies and willies are bad. It's the same reason porn is massively taboo and practically banned. So what, two or more people are having sex, the act of reproduction itself, an entirely natural event, required for us to all exist. Nobody would even be offended by that if it wasn't made into a 'taboo thing' in the last few-hundred years by said 'good christian values'. All of this shit is just ideas of what people in various time periods deemed as acceptable, not absolute moralities which are fully 100% true statements. IMO, Blurred Lines is a great song and aids in the breakup of the blatant sexual repression imposed on everyone, which we're now coming out of, into a new order of promiscuity and 'sexual infidelity'. Haha just look at that word... Sexual infidelity. Yep, if you have sex, then suddenly you're an 'infidel' and doing a bad thing. Fuck that shit.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42256008]When the "you" you're talking about is the government the rules change a bit.[/QUOTE] Can't play music at all in court, or at a town hall meeting, hell you can't even talk out of turn at those. That's not censorship either

[QUOTE=Zeke129;42256149]Can't play music at all in court, or at a town hall meeting, hell you can't even talk out of turn at those. That's not censorship either[/QUOTE] Again, disturbance is different than banning content. It's censorship if you allow one type of music, but not another because of the content. If they said, "All music is banned because it disturbs the atmosphere of the university" they wouldn't be censoring anything because the ban isn't based on content. There's a difference between A) "You aren't allowed to do X because it disturbs the intended purpose of Y" and B) "You aren't allowed to do X because I don't approve of the content."

Such a shame that the song has such a bad message. It's pretty catchy and I just love listening to the tune and Pharrell's voice.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42256163]Again, disturbance is different than banning content. It's censorship if you allow one type of music, but not another because of the content.[/QUOTE] My example still stands If you say inappropriate things in court when you have no reason to the judge will hold you in contempt. That's discriminating based on content of speech, but not censorship, because courts are required to maintain a certain atmosphere that saying inappropriate things simply isn't conducive to

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;42256119]People in Ancient Greece strolled around naked and fucked all the time. Blurred Lines is a great song and aids in the breakup of the blatant sexual repression imposed on everyone, which we're now coming out of, into a new order of promiscuity and 'sexual infidelity'.[/QUOTE] The sexual revolution is here, and it's a shitty ripoff of Marvin Gaye.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;42256173]My example still stands If you say inappropriate things in court when you have no reason to the judge will hold you in contempt. That's discriminating based on content of speech, but not censorship, because courts are required to maintain a certain atmosphere that saying inappropriate things simply isn't conducive to[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]There's a difference between A) "You aren't allowed to do X because it disturbs the intended purpose of Y" and B) "You aren't allowed to do X because I don't approve of the content."[/QUOTE] Contempt of court is only disallowed because it disrupts the court proceedings.

They didn't ban it on campus though, they decided not to play it in student bars and events organised by the students union. It's more like a boycott

[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;42256184]Oh just stop. A large amount of students didn't want to hear some dumb song about how cool rape is and the University agreed and banned it. What a damn shame right?[/QUOTE] I'm sure a lot don't want to hear about evolution either.

[QUOTE=smurfy;42256188]They didn't ban it on campus though, they decided not to play it in student bars and events organised by the students union. It's more like a boycott[/QUOTE] Yeah, but do you expect people to read the article?

[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;42256197]Are you seriously comparing the theory of evolution to a song celebrating rape?[/QUOTE] I'm saying that the opinion of people is all but irrelevant when it comes to censorship. Your argument was literally: "A lot of people don't like it, therefore it's OK for the government to ban it." Just as a note: I, personally, think the song is completely tasteless.

[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;42256197]Are you seriously comparing the theory of evolution to a song celebrating rape?[/QUOTE] I don't really get the whole 'celebrating rape' thing. Please explain it.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42256189]I'm sure a lot don't want to hear about evolution either.[/QUOTE] You're just grasping at straws at this point. How is people not wanting to hear about a scientific theory they don't believe in comparable to a student union that agreed to prevent a rape-filled song from being played at public events?

[QUOTE=sgman91;42256186]Contempt of court is only disallowed because it disrupts the court proceedings.[/QUOTE] And a song about rape being ok doesn't disrupt a university event designed to be accommodating to all students?

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;42256217]I don't really get the whole 'celebrating rape' thing. Please explain it.[/QUOTE] Have you even listened to the song? It's about a dude getting nasty with drunk chicks saying that "they want it." Fucking somebody without proper consent is rape.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;42256232]And a song about rape being ok doesn't disrupt a university event designed to be accommodating to all students?[/QUOTE] No, a song doesn't stop an event from happening. In fact, if the people putting on the event play the song then it is by definition going as intended.

The song sounds pretty bad imo

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;42256119] IMO, Blurred Lines is a great song and aids in the breakup of the blatant sexual repression imposed on everyone[/QUOTE] Provided everyone means women, who are naked while the men wear suits. Anyways, it's not the lewdness of the song it's more the now apparent rape tones that makes it questionable.

[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;42256314]Why don't we just let them play that one song about killing Muslims while we're at it. If the people putting on the event play the song then it is by definition going as intended.[/QUOTE] Honestly, I think people should be able to play whatever music they want at their own events. People can then choose to attend or not. The purpose of a university is to be a place of ideas. Where everyone is free to give an opinion and the best opinions win out. Not a place for the majority to ban everything they don't like.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42256330]Honestly, I think people should be able to play whatever music they want at their own events. People can then choose to attend or not. The purpose of a university is to be a place of ideas. Where everyone is free to give an opinion and the best opinions win out. Not a place for the majority to ban everything they don't like.[/QUOTE] Wasn't aware that a myisoginistic song about raping drunk chicks is an amazing thought worthy of being shares at a uni.