CIOX-FM re the songs “Livin’ It Up” by Limp Bizkit and”Outside” by Aaron Lewis and Fred Durst

(CBSC Decision 00/01-0670)
R. Stanbury (Chair), R. Cohen (ad hoc), R. Moss, M. Oldfield, S. Whiting


This decision relates to two songs broadcast by CIOX-FM (more familiarly known as Xfm, Ottawa) in February 2001: “Livin' It Up” by Limp Bizkit, played at 8:31 p.m. on February 3, and “Outside” by Aaron Lewis and Fred Durst, played at 11:31 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on February 11. While the Panel fully expects that these songs were also played at other times on other days, these were the broadcasts which are the subject of this complaint. The full lyrics of the two songs can be found in the Appendix.Excerpts are provided here.

“Livin' It Up”

The repeated refrain of the song, which contains the most frequent use of the language which is the subject of the complaint, is as follows:

“Biloxi! This is the real motherfuckin’ deal y’all!
Feelin’ those lighters!”

That part of the body of the song that includes another example of an offensive word, is as follows:

I’m just a crazy motherfucker
Livin’ it up
Not giving a fuck
Livin’ life in the fast lane

Another crazy motherfucker
Livin’ it up
Not giving a fuck
In the fast lane


The lyrics of the song itself present no problem; however, the version of the song played on CIOX-FM had been recorded live at a concert in Biloxi, Mississippi and the following line shouted to the audience by the performer was included in the broadcast version:

Drama makes the world go around
Does anybody got a problem with that?
My business is my business
Who’s guilty?
Can I get a witness?
First things first
The Chocolate Starfish is my man Fred Durst
Access Hollywood licence to kill
A redneck fucker from Jacksonville
Bangin’ on the dumpster funk
My microphone machete’s in the back of my trunk

Of the first song, “Livin' It Up”, the complainants wrote on February 13 (the full text of this e-mail and all the other pertinent correspondence can be found in the Appendix):

The song contained the word “fuck” or “fucker” ten times and “motherfucker” nine times. The song was played completely unedited. We, the undersigned, believe the song's lyrics (more specifically the words “fuck” and “motherfucker”) are not socially acceptable common jargon and therefore are inappropriate for the airwaves during the daytime and early evening hours although an argument could be made they are not appropriate at any time. If the station insists on playing music containing the words in question unedited, it should at least do so during a time slot when younger audiences are less likely to be listening (after 10 or 11 pm).

Of the second, “Outside”, the same complainants wrote:

About one minute into the song, one of the singers yells out the line “Biloxi, this is the real motherfuckin' deal y'all!”. The line is not part of the actual lyric and is gratuitous in nature. While it could easily be edited out, the station has elected not to. We, the undersigned, believe the airing of the word “motherfucker” (especially in light that it is not part of the actual lyric) is not socially acceptable common jargon and therefore is inappropriate for the airwaves during the daytime and early evening hours, although an argument could be made they are not appropriate at any time. If the station insists on playing music containing the passage in question unedited it should at least do so during a time slot when younger audiences are less likely to be listening (after 10 or 11 pm).

The Manager of CIOX-FM replied on March 29. He said, in part:


The Ontario Regional Panel Adjudicators considered the complaint under the following provision of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) Code of Ethics, which reads in pertinent part as follows:

CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 6 (paragraph 3)

The Adjudicators listened to tapes of the songs in question and reviewed all of the correspondence. It is the Panel's view that their broadcast in unedited form at times of day when children could reasonably be expected to be listening constitutes a breach of the CAB Code of Ethics.

Songs and Broadcaster Codes

The CBSC has rendered several decisions in which it has concluded, as a general principle, that song lyrics are as subject to private broadcaster standards as any other form of broadcast matter. In CIGLFMre a song entitled “The Bad Touch (CBSC Decision 99/00-0654, October 12, 2000), the Ontario Regional Panel held that

The Manager of CIOX-FM has, on another occasion not related to the current file, made the following general points to the CBSC regarding song lyrics:

The Panel has considered the foregoing important points made by the broadcaster and it agrees with much that the Manager has said in that letter. It expects, however, that it sees the effect of these arguments differently and would likely not, in the application of those principles, always arrive at the same conclusion as CIOX-FM's Manager.

Looking at the points he has made, one by one, the Panel acknowledges that it is often very difficult to resolve many of the issues which the various CBSC Panels are called upon to consider. Song lyrics are not, in that respect, different from other types of dramatic, journalistic, open line or other forms of programming which frequently present new challenges to the CBSC Panels. Such difficulties do not ever rise to the level of impossibility, though. A decision can always be rendered. Indeed, in the case of a complaint which is sent to an adjudicating Panel, a decision must always be rendered. The CBSC has been delivered a set of codified standards established by Canada's private broadcasters, pursuant to which the broadcasters expect that the programming of all members of their community will be evaluated.

The Manager's letter suggests that the nature of song lyrics is such that a different “formula” than that applied to spoken word broadcast material is required. Some of those potential differences are highlighted in his next paragraph, which refers to song lyrics as “fictitious pieces of work by songwriters intended to enlighten, entertain, express emotion, be thought-provoking or simply ridiculous in some cases.” In the broad experience of the Ontario Regional Panel and, indeed, of the CBSC generally, it would be fair to say that elements including fiction, as well as the extremes of “thought-provoking” or “ridiculous” matter, among others, have been considered in the past. While the standards against which all programming is measured must be the same, the appreciation of the programming in that application may differ. Dramatic effects involving even such exaggerated factors as satire and hyperbole are understood and contextualized. Purpose will be appreciated but will not necessarily constitute a justification for what is said, sung or depicted.

When broadcasters developed the Codes, they did (as codifiers generally do) establish a set of general principles which could be adapted to the broadest range of complaints about specific issues, however disparate. In the end, song lyrics are but another form of communication, subject, as all others, to the private broadcasters' standards and assessed as a function of their Codes by the CBSC Panel Adjudicators who are responsible for the exercise of that function whatever the nature of the complaint or of the programming complained of.

It is also of relevance to note that the other English-speaking countries with bodies or standards similar to the CBSC and Canadian Codes also deal with song lyrics. In Great Britain, for example, the Radio Authority Programme Code contains a section on “Language in Programming, including Song Lyrics”, which reads:

While the Panel is unaware of other broadcast codes which include provisions specifically referring to song lyrics, it is aware of the fact that the other Western countries with similar regulatory bodies and codes treat songs under general broadcast rules, much as the CBSC currently does. In Australia, for example, broadcasters have been judged by the Australian Broadacsting Authority (ABA) under both the CommercialRadio Code and the Community Broadcasting Code for the airing of coarse language in song lyrics. So, too, in New Zealand, where the Broadcasting Standards Authority (NZBSA) has decided against broadcasters for the same reason under the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. In South Africa, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA) has also ruled on song lyrics under their Code of the BCCSA, and, even in the First Amendment environment of the United States of America, song lyrics have been dealt with by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under Section 503(1)(b) of the Communications Act (and title 18 of the United States Code). In other words, the position with respect to song lyrics taken by the CBSC over the course of the last two years is mirrored in other Western jurisdictions.

Offensive Language and the Suitability of Subject Matter for Children

As to specific offensive language decisions, a scant seven years ago, in CFRA-AMre Steve Madely (CBSC Decision 93/94-0295, November 15, 1994), the Ontario Regional Panel was called upon to deal with a complaint that a radio host had used the words “damn” and “Goddammit”. In comparison to those relatively innocuous words, it would be reasonable to observe that the song lyrics challenged by the listeners in this file represent a quantum leap. There was a finding in favour of the broadcaster in the 1994 matter and, in CJOH-TVre “White Men Can't Jump” (CBSC Decision 94/95-0060, March 12, 1996), where the language was raunchier, more akin to that occurring in “Livin' It Up”, this Panel again decided that the broadcaster was justified in broadcasting the feature film in question. In the 1996 decision, it considered that the language was contextually justified and that the time period of the broadcast, post-9:00 p.m., and the presence of viewer advisories referring to “coarse language” at the start of the film and coming out of each commercial break during the first hour, rendered the broadcast of the film within the codified norms. The Panel declared that it was

While various CBSC Panels have since dealt with the question of coarse and offensive language, none has concluded that the challenged broadcast breached the codified standard. In every case, the Panel either decided that the language was relatively innocuous, not amounting to more than a matter of taste (and should be turned off by the viewer or listener), or that, since the broadcast hour was unspecified, the Panel could not determine whether the question of the suitability of the program for children could be ascertained. Examples of such decisions follow.

In a later radio decision, CIQC-AMre Galganov in the Morning (CBSCDecision 97/98-0473, August 14, 1998), regarding a morning talk-show hosted by a well-known political campaigner for the rights of English-languageQuebeckers, the Quebec Regional Panel made the following statements regarding the vulgarity of the host's language:

More recently, in one of the first CBSC decisions involving song lyrics, CIOX-FM re a song entitled “Boyz in the Hood” (CBSC Decision 99/00-619, October 12, 2000), this Regional Panel observed:

As to the issue of the suitability of certain types of program content for children, the leading CBSC decision is CHOM-FM and CILQ-FMre the Howard Stern Show (CBSC Decisions 97/98-0001+ and 0015+, October 17 and 18, 1997), in which the Quebec and Ontario Regional Panels said:

The point was dealt with again by this Panel in CILQ-FMre the Howard Stern Show (CBSC Decision 97/98-0487, 488, 504 and 535, February 20, 1998).

Since the matter at hand is the first occasion on which a CBSC Panel is called upon to deal with the words “fuck”, “motherfucker” and related terms, it is instructive, although not necessarily determinative, to consider how regulatory or self-regulatory authorities in other countries have dealt with such language. In Great Britain, where the Broadcasting Standards Commission has a mandate to conduct research as well as render decisions under its codes, a 2000 study indicated that those two words were among the three most offensive to society and should not be broadcast at any time of day. In New Zealand, a similar study found those words among the four most offensive and, in the case of a song played at 5:10 pm on a campus radio station in which “motherfucker” was used six times, the NZBSA ruled against the broadcaster. They ruled similarly in the case of a song played at 9:00 am and containing such lyrics as “Take a stand, fuck the man” and “Fuck the rule, smash a car, make it fuck up.”In the case of a rap song played at 10:40 pm, however, they ruled in favour of the broadcaster, accepting that the music was played late at night, among other things.

In the present matter, it is the view of the Panel that the two songs under consideration were broadcast at times of the day when younger persons could reasonably be expected to be listening to the radio. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that, at this or any time of day, broadcasters generally have a choice of playing potentially offensive songs in edited formats. In CIGL-FMre a song entitled “The Bad Touch” (CBSC Decision 99/00-0654, October 12, 2000), this Panel explained this option in the following terms:

In CIOX-FMre a song entitled “Boyz in the Hood(CBSC Decision 99/00-619, October 12, 2000), this Panel added:

In the case of the song lyrics in “Livin' It Up”, the Panel finds that the repeated use of the coarse and offensive language “fucker”, “fuck” and “motherfucker” constitutes a breach of the CAB Code of Ethics when broadcast at hours when children could reasonably be expected to be listening. In the event that an edited version of the song was unavailable, CIOX-FM had the choice of delaying the airplay until a later hour or not playing the unedited song at all. The choice made constitutes a breach of Clause 6, Paragraph 3, of the CABCode of Ethics.

While, in the song “Outside”, the inappropriate word, “motherfuckin'”, was used only once, as a live interjection by the singer at the time of the Biloxi concert, the Panel considers that its use was utterly gratuitous and broadcast at an hour when children could reasonably have been expected to be listening. Moreover, given its placement in the song, it could very easily have been excised without effect by the broadcaster. The broadcast of the song without editing when children could be expected to be listening constitutes a breach of Clause 6, Paragraph 3, of the CAB Code of Ethics.


Broadcaster responsiveness is always an issue considered in CBSC adjudications. The CBSC considers that the dialogue between broadcasters and complainants is an extremely positive component of the self-regulatory process, to the point that it is in fact a membership responsibility of all CBSC broadcaster members. In this case, the broadcaster's response was not extensive but it did deal with its perspective on the issues raised by the complainants. Something more might have been useful but the failure to send such a letter does not on this occasion amount to a breach of the standard of responsiveness.


CIOX-FM is required to: 1) announce this decision, in the following terms, once during peak listening hours within three days following the release of this decision and once more within seven days following the release of this decision during the time period in which the songs “Livin' It Up” and “Outside” had been broadcast; 2) within the fourteen days following the broadcast of the announcements, to provide written confirmation of the airing of the announcements to the representative of the complainants who filed the Ruling Request; and 3) to provide the CBSC with that written confirmation and with air check copies of the broadcasts of the two announcements which must be made by CIOX-FM.

This decision is a public document upon its release by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.