5 ms·

A Hit Song on YouTube, Unnameable on the Radio

31 points by donohoe 16y ago

AndrewDucker 16y ago
This is going to happen more and more as media moves online. Are the FTC going to try and prevent Youtube from hosting this kind of content? Or have we broken the stranglehold of government censorship?
- donohoe 16y ago
  I would not think the FTC would try to do such a thing. Its more a reflection on how held back our radio and TV content really is.
  - AndrewDucker 16y ago
    I tend to agree. The question, then, is whether TV companies will use this as an excuse to pressure the FTC into letting them use the same content.
  - maw 16y ago
    The one isn't necessarily mutually exclusive with the other: media has been held back, but that won't necessarily stop the FTC (or some other part of the government) from getting involved in other media. I hope you're right that the FTC won't, but I don't believe it.
- ivey 16y ago
  Do you mean the FCC, or are you making a trade argument?
  - AndrewDucker 16y ago
    Sorry, yes, FCC.
brk 16y ago
IMO, this is another nail in the coffin for FM radio, this song is very playable on Sirius/XM.
- ssharp 16y ago
  Some of Sirius' content is still censored. Hits 1 (their Top 40 channeL) definitely is, and I'm guessing some of their other contemporary channels are as well. The R&B / Hip Hop channels are not.
  - brk 16y ago
    Correct, but they do this to create "family friendly" stations. Other stations play the same songs uncensored. This is different than being forced to censor/edit songs because of FCC rules.
barredo 16y ago
Youtube Song Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAV0XrbEwNc&has_verified=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAV0XrbEwNc&has_verified=...
- avar 16y ago
  "This video contains content from WMG. It is no longer available in your country."
- points 16y ago
  Not a great track IMHO. If it wasn't called "fuck you" I don't expect many people would care about it. And really why is this on HN?
  - leviathant 16y ago
    I agree that it's very middle of the road, but people like that. As to why this is on HN? If you don't think it should be here, click "flag" just below the headline.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    It's not a novel name - Lily Allen, for example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFE6qQ3ySXE&ob=av3n http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFE6qQ3ySXE&ob=av3n Personally, though I'm not generally one for profanity I quite like it. I'd be unhappy to hear it playing in public though.
  - avar 16y ago
    It's on HN because someone submitted it, and other users have subsequently upvoted it enough for it to make the main page.
kilian 16y ago
I still don't understand the words "fuck" and "shit" still being censored. Their shock value is long gone, isn't it? The song, and the video are great by the way, and the distribution a perfect example of why the internet works so well. It's also great to sing along to. Loudly. Edit. This song has had some fun 'remixes' too, check out Dirty Dancing: http://vimeo.com/14363611 http://vimeo.com/14363611
- TallGuyShort 16y ago
  Ignoring what one considers appropriate for children, I personally just find them to be incredibly ugly sounding words, and I generally don't enjoy being around people who can't speak without using them. So regardless of what the FCC will choose to censor, I for one just wouldn't listen to a radio station that made a habit of broadcasting it.
  - kilian 16y ago
    Sure, but it's not like censoring radio and television will keep children from hearing and/or using them. In fact, I'd wager to say they don't even play a role. Back when I was a little kid, swearwords came from older children, and were often far worse than the ones mentioned here. I'm with you on not finding people who can't speak without using swearwords to be intolerable, but when used to express emotion (such as in this song), I don't mind it at all.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      > In fact, I'd wager to say they don't even play a role. As someone wearing black tight skinny jeans, I'd go one step further and say that it plays a very important role: by being 'taboo,' curse words enable adolescent rebellion, and cause kids to use them _more_. See also smoking, drinking, and drugs.
- wwortiz 16y ago
  Sometimes the shock value is gone but it really has to do with context. The song is rather light and poppy but the way 'fuck you' is put in there is meant to be offensive and that is when the shock value still exists. If you stub your toe and curse it really isn't shocking but when you fight with someone and start yelling expletives it can be shocking and offensive. However I don't see context based censorship happening anytime soon and it is easier just to police a list of banned words and let the new media shine otherwise.
jcl 16y ago
In a wonderful illustration of the article's thesis, the song is also unnameable in the New York Times -- even as a matter of record. Fortunately Wikipedia has no such inhibition, so historians won't need to guess at the song title. :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Profanity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Profanity
- paol 16y ago
  To the point where the article becomes semi-uninteligible. And the writer seems oblivious to the irony.
  - iron_ball 16y ago
    I took it as extremely dry wit. The writer can't not see it.
- MatthewCampbell 16y ago
  They should have printed the word. It's critical to understanding the story. This is the same mistake they made when Cheney said "Fuck yourself." They danced around the word, calling it, "An obscene phrase to describe what he thought Mr. Leahy should do." Readers can only clearly judge the offensiveness of the phrases by seeing them written. The Washington Post decided to print the word in the Cheney case. I bet they'd seriously consider printing the song title, if they don't decide that pop culture and radio freedom are less newsworthy than vice presidential asides.
- gojomo 16y ago
  You can also look over the NYTimes archives for an inconsistent treatment of the word that has replaced 'fuck' as the ultimate obscenity -- the 'n-word'. Sometimes when it's part of the story, they quote it; other times (and increasingly in recent years), they use indirect euphemisms, as I have here.
cubicle67 16y ago
Have a listen to http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/ http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/ (Live feed: http://abc.net.au/streaming/triplej/triplej.m3u http://abc.net.au/streaming/triplej/triplej.m3u ) An Australian government funded (no advertising at all) radio station with no limits on content or language.
hippich 16y ago
Whatever. I really like this song. And not 'cos it's named "Fuck you" (i am not native and can't hear this easily), but 'cos of nice music and funny voice =)
CWuestefeld 16y ago
Back in college, I used to help out with a friend's radio show. It was a late night heavy metal show, once a week. One of the songs we liked to play was by a thrash band called "Overkill", a song entitled "Fuck You" [1]. The funny thing was that while we were allowed to play the song itself, we were not allowed to announce its name. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAkaN3-v01A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAkaN3-v01A
cilantro 16y ago
I always love reading these types of stories. The NYT has taken the art of dancing around obvious vulgarity to another level.

31 points by donohoe 16y ago

This is going to happen more and more as media moves online. Are the FTC going to try and prevent Youtube from hosting this kind of content? Or have we broken the stranglehold of government censorship?

donohoe 16y ago
I would not think the FTC would try to do such a thing. Its more a reflection on how held back our radio and TV content really is.
- AndrewDucker 16y ago
  I tend to agree. The question, then, is whether TV companies will use this as an excuse to pressure the FTC into letting them use the same content.
- maw 16y ago
  The one isn't necessarily mutually exclusive with the other: media has been held back, but that won't necessarily stop the FTC (or some other part of the government) from getting involved in other media. I hope you're right that the FTC won't, but I don't believe it.
ivey 16y ago
Do you mean the FCC, or are you making a trade argument?
- AndrewDucker 16y ago
  Sorry, yes, FCC.

brk 16y ago

IMO, this is another nail in the coffin for FM radio, this song is very playable on Sirius/XM.

ssharp 16y ago
Some of Sirius' content is still censored. Hits 1 (their Top 40 channeL) definitely is, and I'm guessing some of their other contemporary channels are as well. The R&B / Hip Hop channels are not.
- brk 16y ago
  Correct, but they do this to create "family friendly" stations. Other stations play the same songs uncensored. This is different than being forced to censor/edit songs because of FCC rules.

barredo 16y ago

Youtube Song Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAV0XrbEwNc&has_verified=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAV0XrbEwNc&has_verified=...

avar 16y ago
"This video contains content from WMG. It is no longer available in your country."
points 16y ago
Not a great track IMHO. If it wasn't called "fuck you" I don't expect many people would care about it. And really why is this on HN?
- leviathant 16y ago
  I agree that it's very middle of the road, but people like that. As to why this is on HN? If you don't think it should be here, click "flag" just below the headline.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  It's not a novel name - Lily Allen, for example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFE6qQ3ySXE&ob=av3n http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFE6qQ3ySXE&ob=av3n Personally, though I'm not generally one for profanity I quite like it. I'd be unhappy to hear it playing in public though.
- avar 16y ago
  It's on HN because someone submitted it, and other users have subsequently upvoted it enough for it to make the main page.

kilian 16y ago

I still don't understand the words "fuck" and "shit" still being censored. Their shock value is long gone, isn't it? The song, and the video are great by the way, and the distribution a perfect example of why the internet works so well. It's also great to sing along to. Loudly. Edit. This song has had some fun 'remixes' too, check out Dirty Dancing: http://vimeo.com/14363611 http://vimeo.com/14363611

TallGuyShort 16y ago
Ignoring what one considers appropriate for children, I personally just find them to be incredibly ugly sounding words, and I generally don't enjoy being around people who can't speak without using them. So regardless of what the FCC will choose to censor, I for one just wouldn't listen to a radio station that made a habit of broadcasting it.
- kilian 16y ago
  Sure, but it's not like censoring radio and television will keep children from hearing and/or using them. In fact, I'd wager to say they don't even play a role. Back when I was a little kid, swearwords came from older children, and were often far worse than the ones mentioned here. I'm with you on not finding people who can't speak without using swearwords to be intolerable, but when used to express emotion (such as in this song), I don't mind it at all.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    > In fact, I'd wager to say they don't even play a role. As someone wearing black tight skinny jeans, I'd go one step further and say that it plays a very important role: by being 'taboo,' curse words enable adolescent rebellion, and cause kids to use them _more_. See also smoking, drinking, and drugs.
wwortiz 16y ago
Sometimes the shock value is gone but it really has to do with context. The song is rather light and poppy but the way 'fuck you' is put in there is meant to be offensive and that is when the shock value still exists. If you stub your toe and curse it really isn't shocking but when you fight with someone and start yelling expletives it can be shocking and offensive. However I don't see context based censorship happening anytime soon and it is easier just to police a list of banned words and let the new media shine otherwise.

jcl 16y ago

In a wonderful illustration of the article's thesis, the song is also unnameable in the New York Times -- even as a matter of record. Fortunately Wikipedia has no such inhibition, so historians won't need to guess at the song title. :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Profanity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Profanity

paol 16y ago
To the point where the article becomes semi-uninteligible. And the writer seems oblivious to the irony.
- iron_ball 16y ago
  I took it as extremely dry wit. The writer can't not see it.
MatthewCampbell 16y ago
They should have printed the word. It's critical to understanding the story. This is the same mistake they made when Cheney said "Fuck yourself." They danced around the word, calling it, "An obscene phrase to describe what he thought Mr. Leahy should do." Readers can only clearly judge the offensiveness of the phrases by seeing them written. The Washington Post decided to print the word in the Cheney case. I bet they'd seriously consider printing the song title, if they don't decide that pop culture and radio freedom are less newsworthy than vice presidential asides.
gojomo 16y ago
You can also look over the NYTimes archives for an inconsistent treatment of the word that has replaced 'fuck' as the ultimate obscenity -- the 'n-word'. Sometimes when it's part of the story, they quote it; other times (and increasingly in recent years), they use indirect euphemisms, as I have here.

cubicle67 16y ago

Have a listen to http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/ http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/ (Live feed: http://abc.net.au/streaming/triplej/triplej.m3u http://abc.net.au/streaming/triplej/triplej.m3u ) An Australian government funded (no advertising at all) radio station with no limits on content or language.

hippich 16y ago

Whatever. I really like this song. And not 'cos it's named "Fuck you" (i am not native and can't hear this easily), but 'cos of nice music and funny voice =)

CWuestefeld 16y ago

Back in college, I used to help out with a friend's radio show. It was a late night heavy metal show, once a week. One of the songs we liked to play was by a thrash band called "Overkill", a song entitled "Fuck You" [1]. The funny thing was that while we were allowed to play the song itself, we were not allowed to announce its name. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAkaN3-v01A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAkaN3-v01A

cilantro 16y ago

I always love reading these types of stories. The NYT has taken the art of dancing around obvious vulgarity to another level.