Search

ARCHIVED - Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2004-196

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.

Archived

This page has been archived on the Web.

 

Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2004-196

 

See also: 2004-196-1

Ottawa, 4 June 2004

  Corus Radio Company
Vancouver, British Columbia
 

Complaint regarding the broadcast of an episode of The Tom Leykis Show on radio station CHMJ Vancouver

  In this decision, the Commission addresses the complaint of a radio listener regarding the content of a promotional spot and program identification message that aired on CHMJ Vancouver during the 1 November 2002 broadcast of an episode of the U.S. syndicated radio program, The Tom Leykis Show. The Commission's investigation of this complaint included a review of the logger tape of the entire program episode in question. Based on its review, the Commission finds that, by broadcasting the episode, Corus Radio Company, the licensee of CHMJ, breached the prohibition against the broadcast of any abusive comment contained in the Radio Regulations, 1986 and failed to meet a number of Canadian broadcasting policy objectives set out in the Broadcasting Act, including the high standard provision.
 

Introduction

 

The complaint

1. On 21 November 2002, the Commission received a complaint about the content of a program segment that aired during the 1 November 2002 broadcast of a radio phone-in program entitled The Tom Leykis Show (the program) on CHMJ Vancouver. The licensee of CHMJ is Corus Radio Company (Corus), which is indirectly owned and controlled by Corus Entertainment Inc. The licensee has branded CHMJ as Mojo Radio Vancouver.
2. The complainant informed the Commission that, at just before 5:00 p.m., she had heard a male caller to the radio phone-in program describe "how he had anally raped his girlfriend who was passed out at the time. He went on to tell everyone listening how he had also taken pictures of this act." The complainant also stated that the host "seemed to think that this was very funny and made some comment on how the male caller must have enjoyed doing that."

3.

The complainant characterized her concern as follows:

I am not easily offended, but this is probably the most offensive thing I have ever heard on the radio. I do not believe that it is funny when someone is raped. The male caller described a criminal act and it is completely inappropriate to broadcast this on the radio. I would like to know how this type of 'entertainment' is allowed to be broadcast to the Canadian public.

 
The Commission's response
4. Although the licensee is a member of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC), the Commission did not refer the complaint to the CBSC. It elected instead to investigate the matter directly due to the potential illegality of the broadcast described in the complaint. Accordingly, pursuant to section 8(6) of the Radio Regulations, 1986 (the Regulations), in a letter dated 27 November 2002, the Commission directed the licensee of CHMJ to respond to the complaint and to submit its logger tape of the four-hour program.
5. The licensee submitted the logger tape under cover of a letter dated 17 December 2002. In auditing the logger tape, Commission staff found that the program segment that was the subject of the complaint was a promotional spot and identification message for The Tom Leykis Show. The logger tape included four additional program segments that Commission staff considered to be offensive and derogatory towards women. Each of the segments contained exchanges between the program's host and callers. All occurred during the four-hour broadcast of The Tom Leykis Show on 1 November 2002. In a letter dated 31 March 2003, the Commission directed the licensee to comment on the content of the four additional program segments.
6. The transcript of the promotional spot and program identification message described in the complaint is labelled as program segment (a) in the appendix to this decision. The transcripts of the relevant portions of each of the four additional program segments are labelled (b) through (e) in the appendix.
 
Response by Corus
7. In its 17 December 2002 letter, Corus acknowledged that it should not have broadcast the promotional spot and identification message that was the subject of the complaint. The licensee outlined in its letter the various measures it had in place at the time of the broadcast, "as a matter of course", to detect and remove such inappropriate content from The Tom Leykis Show. These measures included company-wide guidelines against discrimination on radio and the development of programming policies and guidelines applicable to different formats and types of programs broadcast. The measures also included the use of digital time shift equipment and dedication of a full-time editor to monitor and edit the program, and the provision by station management of training to editing staff concerning programming policies and requirements. The licensee explained that despite these measures, the segment in question was not detected and removed: "[The] editor focuses on the live portions of the program and inadvertently missed the offending comment as it was part of a pre-recorded show identification and he mistakenly believed the program was about to go into a commercial break."
8. The licensee added that, as a result of the complaint, it had held numerous meetings with programming personnel to re-iterate the need for greater vigilance. It indicated further that a senior member of the programming department had been assigned to monitor the program in question to ensure that it complied with broadcasting standards and requirements, and that several non-offensive segments were made available to replace potentially offensive programming.
9. On 16 April 2003, the licensee responded to the Commission's 31 March 2003 letter. In its letter, the licensee stated it should not have broadcast the four additional program segments identified by the Commission. The licensee outlined the steps that it had taken since the time of the complaint to "ensure better control" over the program, in addition to the measures described above, including regular training sessions on acceptable content and compliance, a review of regulatory obligations at weekly programming meetings, and the implementation of daily reports of edits made to The Tom Leykis Show.
10. In June 2003, CHMJ took The Tom Leykis Show off the air.
 

The Commission's analysis

11.

The Tom Leykis Show, a syndicated U.S. call-in program that originated in Los Angeles, California, was broadcast by CHML between 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays until the licensee removed the program from its schedule in June 2003. Typically the program began with an editorial commentary by Tom Leykis (the host), either about a current event or issue in the media, or about an aspect of dating or of relationships. This introductory segment was followed by calls from listeners sharing their views on the subject of the day and/or seeking advice about relationships. The Commission based the analysis that follows on the episode of The Tom Leykis Show that was broadcast on CHMJ Vancouver between the hours of 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. (PST) on 1 November 2002.

12.

The Commission is required, pursuant to section 5(1) of the Broadcasting Act (the Act), to regulate and supervise the Canadian broadcasting system with a view to implementing the broadcasting policy set out in section 3(1) of the Act. Section 3(1) sets out an extensive declaration of the broadcasting policy for Canada, listing a number of policy objectives. Section 3(1)(d)(i) declares that the Canadian broadcasting system should "serve to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural [and] social.fabric of Canada". Section 3(1)(d)(ii) states that the Canadian broadcasting system should "encourage the development of Canadian expression by providing a wide range of programming that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas [and] values". Section 3(1)(d)(iii) states that the Canadian broadcasting system, through its programming, should "serve the needs and interests, and reflect the circumstances and aspirations, of Canadian men, women and children, including equal rights". Section 3(1)(g) states that "the programming originated by broadcasting undertakings should be of high standard".

13.

Section 3(b) of the Regulations was enacted with a view to implementing the Canadian broadcasting policy objectives of the Act set out above. It specifies that a licensee shall not broadcast:
 

.any abusive comment that, when taken in context, tends to or is likely to expose an individual or a group or class of individuals to hatred or contempt on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability.

14.

The Commission's examination took into account the concerns raised by the complainant, the licensee's replies, and the Commission's own review of the program. This examination was conducted against the background of the prohibition against the broadcast of any abusive comment contained in section 3(b) of the Regulations, and the Canadian broadcasting policy objectives of the Act, including the high standard provision set out in section 3(1)(g) of the Act.
 
Abusive comment
15. The abusive comment regulation is intended to prevent the very real harms that such comments cause, harms that undermine Canadian broadcasting policy objectives. Comments that tend to or are likely to expose a group to hatred or contempt cause emotional damage that may be of grave psychological and social consequence to members of the target group. The derision, hostility and abuse encouraged by such comments can have a severely negative impact on the targeted group's sense of self-worth, human dignity and acceptance within society. This harm undermines the equality rights of those targeted, rights which the programming of the Canadian broadcasting system should respect and reflect, according to Canadian broadcasting policy. In addition to preventing the harm to those targeted by the comments, the regulation prohibiting abusive comment is required to ensure that Canadian attitudes and values are reflected and respected for all Canadians. The broadcast of comment provoking hatred or contempt also undermines the cultural and social fabric of Canada, which the Canadian broadcasting system should safeguard, enrich and strengthen.
 
Exposing an identifiable group to hatred or contempt
16. The Commission considers the promotional spot and program identification message that triggered this investigation to be abusive towards women, for the reasons discussed below.
17. The content of that program segment went beyond being merely offensive or exploitative. The sarcasm evident in the comments of both caller and host, and in their delivery of these comments, encouraged listeners to participate in a program whose underpinning philosophy appeared to be that sexual violence could be acceptable and justified. Further, the Commission believes that there was no context for the exchange that occurred between the two that might conceivably have justified its broadcast. In addition, this exchange of comments, and its use as a tool to promote the program, conveyed the message that listeners were welcome to call The Tom Leykis Show and deliver accounts of their assaults against women with pride, and that this was the type of call that typified what a listener could expect to hear on the program.
18. In the Commission's view, the promotional spot and program identification message, by its content and by its very context (i.e., its use as a promotional tool), condoned sexual violence against women. The Commission considers that violence against women, in all its forms, but in particular, sexual violence, is hateful and contemptuous, and that the licensee, by broadcasting the taped conversation that was included as part of the promotional message, was likely to have exposed women to hatred or contempt.
19. The Commission considers that the additional program segments referred to above also contained content that, given its context, tended to expose women to hatred or contempt, as contemplated in section 3(b) of the Regulations. For example, it considers that program segment (b) is particularly contemptuous and abusive of women, as the denigration is clearly articulated and generalized so as to apply to all women, through the combination of its imagery of violence, including sexual violence, and the "advice" that women are seemingly only worthy of psychological manipulation for the purposes of sex.
20. Program segment (d) also runs afoul of section 3(b) of the Regulations, as the segment was likely to expose women to contempt through its clear encouragement to children to be contemptuous of, and abusive to, women. The segment stereotypes all women as untrustworthy "bitches" deserving of nothing but poor treatment by men. This advice is portrayed as an indispensable life lesson for all young men about to enter the world of dating. While the bad treatment is not defined, it is clearly implied that men have carte blanche to mistreat women, emotionally and psychologically at the very least, and as a matter of course.
21. Accordingly, for all of these reasons, the Commission finds the broadcast in question to have been in breach of section 3(b) of the Regulations,as it contains abusive comment that tended or was likely to expose women to contempt.
 
The high standard provision and other Canadian broadcasting policy objectives
22. In addition to its assessment of whether broadcast of The Tom Leykis Show constituted a breach of the abusive comment provision of the Regulations, the Commission examined whether the broadcast was contrary to the objective of section 3(1)(g) of the Act that programming originated by broadcasting undertakings be of high standard, or contrary to other of the Act's Canadian broadcasting policy objectives noted in paragraph 12 above. The Commission conducted its review, bearing in mind the context of the program, taken as a whole. The following analysis focuses on three matters raised by the episode in question, namely whether they sanction or promote violence against women, whether they exploit or denigrate women, and their sexually explicit content.1 These three matters are discussed below.
 
Sanction and promotion of violence against women

23.

Program segment (a) that triggered the complaint, by virtue of both its content and sarcastic tone, is in fact a caller's boastful account of his having engaged in non-consensual sex with another person. The caller was bragging of having apparently forced himself on his girlfriend, who was unconscious at the time, and who was therefore unable to respond, either for the purpose of giving her consent to the sexual act or to object to it.

24.

In the Commission's view, the sarcastic tone of voice used by the program host in responding to the caller would make it evident to a reasonable listener that the host was not criticizing, but effectively condoning, the caller's behaviour. Further, as stated earlier, there was no context for the exchange that occurred between the two that, in the Commission's view, might conceivably have justified its broadcast. For example, the program segment was clearly not part of a discussion about non-consensual sex, nor was it presented as a part of a dramatic interpretation of a fictional event. Instead, it appears to have been chosen purely to identify and promote the program, and to elicit from the program's listeners telephone calls of a similar, offensive and objectionable nature.

25.

By choosing the tape of this particular conversation to promote The Tom Leykis Show, the licensee effectively conveyed the message that the program was a venue for boasting about unacceptable sexual behaviour, including assaults against women. Therefore, one could infer that the broadcaster, by its use of this taped discussion to promote the program, condoned sexually violent behaviour towards women.

26.

Given that Corus provided no reason or further explanation of the context of the segment, and given that the licensee agreed without hesitation that the offending item should not have been broadcast, it is reasonable to conclude that there was no context that could justify its broadcast. As such, the program segment is a clear instance of the sanction and promotion of violence against women.
27. Other segments of the program episode in question also appear to sanction or promote violence against women. For example, program segment (c) belittles and trivializes the subject of abortion in a manner that implies that having an abortion is appropriate punishment for promiscuity. The caller's apparent success in convincing his girlfriend to undergo an abortion is applauded by the host, who suggests that the caller should be inducted into a figurative "hall of fame". Violent and degrading commentary is used throughout the segment, including the host's assertion that the caller "nailed the bitch for the rest of us." Such comments by the host constitute explicit attempts to legitimize such behaviour.
28. Program segment (b), particularly the following comment, also evokes images of the degradation of, and the use of violence against, women:
 

You want to hit it as many times as you can and then you want to keep hitting it and use her as bait to get other hot chicks.... Once you manage to snag one of them, then you kick her through the uprights.

29. The Commission finds that the program's repeated and consistent use of these and similar images sanctions and promotes violence against women.
 
Exploitation of women
30. In the Commission's view, the program is not only dominated by violent tones and images, but offers up regular and degrading generalizations about women. In program segments (b) and (d), for example, all women are deemed to be "bitches" to be controlled through physical and/or psychological manipulation.
31. Program segment (e) also contains degrading generalizations about women, including exploitative commentary that objectifies women's bodies in a crude and demeaning fashion. One example of this is the host's request that female listeners send in photographs of their naked or near-naked bodies, which would then be critiqued for flaws by the program's staff. This, combined with the related commentary by the show's host, implies that women's bodies tend to be deformed, ugly, comparable to meat, and in need of remedy, possibly through surgery.
32. Other examples of exploitative and degrading commentary include the following:
 
  • the reference in program segment (b) to the exploitation of women as "bait to get other chicks";
  • the use, also in program segment (b), of such expressions as "hit it" (a violent euphemism for sex), and "kick her through the uprights" (i.e., get rid of her as though she's disposable); and
  • the comments "you nailed the bitch for the rest of us" in program segment (c), and "women are bitches" and "you have to be an a-hole to get a woman" in program segment (d).
33. The Commission views the consistent degradation of women that occurred within the 1 November 2002 episode of the Tom Leykis Show as serving to exploit and denigrate women.
 
Sexually explicit content
34. The Tom Leykis Show is an intentionally provocative call-in show predominantly about women and sex. As such, sexual references and discussions, whether in the form of innuendo or more direct language can be expected. Concerns may arise, however, where such references and discussions are of a sexually explicit nature.
35. The Commission has issued earlier rulings on the inappropriateness of sexually explicit radio content aired during the day. In the Commission's 31 January 1995 letter to Radio Carleton Inc., licensee of CKCU-FM, it found the station to be in breach of the high standard provision of the Act when it broadcast a song called You Suck. The song's sexually explicit lyrics graphically described the act of cunnilingus. Although the station had broadcast content advisories, the Commission nonetheless found the airing of this particular song to be inappropriate, since it had been broadcast during the daytime hours of between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.2
36. In the case of The Tom Leykis Show, the Commission notes that a standard advisory was broadcast, on average, four times during any one hour of the Tom Leykis Show during the 1 November 2002 broadcast. The text of the advisory was as follows:
 

The Tom Leykis Show on Mojo Radio may contain content of an adult nature and is intended for mature audiences only. Please listen responsibly.

37. In addition to the regular advisories, at approximately 4:15 p.m., the host issued a warning to listeners under the age of 18 years that they were not to call the program. The Commission notes that, despite this warning, the licensee broadcast the discussion with Colin, a caller identified in program segment (d) as being 12 years of age.
38. The Commission considers the program segment that was the subject of the complaint to have been explicit in its description of a sexual act. As discussed above, there was no justifiable context for such explicitness. The Commission finds the description of anal intercourse to be inappropriate for daytime broadcast, particularly given the findings discussed above with respect to the degrading, and violent nature of the broadcast overall. Moreover, the Commission considers that the various advisories do not serve to permit the broadcast of such comments during daytime hours, particularly given that the offending segments were broadcast between 3:45 p.m. and 5:45 p.m.
 
Conclusions with respect to high standard and other Canadian broadcasting policy objectives
39. Based on the above analysis, the Commission finds the broadcast in question contrary to Canadian broadcasting policy objectives. The Commission finds that the broadcast was not of high standard, contrary to the objective set out in section 3(1)(g) of the Act, as the broadcast contains graphic discussions about sexual matters and situations, as well as exploitative and degrading comments against women. Moreover, the program sanctions and promotes violence against women. For these reasons, the Commission also finds that the broadcast failed to reflect and respect Canadian attitudes and values, including the equality rights of women, and was contrary to sections 3(1)(d)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Act. It is all the more unacceptable that a licensee would broadcast this program during daytime hours, when children could reasonably be expected to be listening.
 

The Commission's determination

40.

In the Commission's view, in broadcasting the program segments contained in The Tom Leykis Show of 1 November 2002 discussed above, the licensee breached the prohibition against the broadcast of any abusive comment contained in section 3(6) of the Radio Regulations, 1986. The Commission also finds that the licensee contravened a number of Canadian broadcasting policy objectives set out in the Broadcasting Act, including the high standard provision. At the same time, the Commission notes that, in response to the complaint that triggered this investigation, the licensee did take action, first, by implementing more effective measures to detect and remove offensive content from the program, and ultimately, by ceasing to broadcast the program altogether.

41. The Commission notes that the licence for CHMJ Vancouver expires 31 August 2005. The licensee will be required, as part of its licence renewal application, to provide a report on the measures and mechanisms it has in place to ensure that the content of the programming broadcast on CHMJ Vancouver adheres at all times to the Act and the Regulations, as well as on the implementation and effectiveness of these measures and mechanisms.
  Secretary General
  This decision is to be appended to the licence. It is available in alternative format upon request, and may also be examined at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca
 

Appendix to Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2004-196

 

Transcripts of relevant portions of the promotional spot and program identification for The Tom Leykis Show, and of four additional program segments broadcast by CHMJ Vancouver on 1 November 2002

  a) At approximately 4:55 p.m., a promo for the Tom Leykis Show is aired:
  Promo voice: "Tom Leykis 1-800-5-800-TOM"
  Caller: "I banged my girlfriend in the a- , she was passed out drunk."
  Tom: "That's terrible. You didn't get any enjoyment out of this, did you?"
  Caller: "Oh, oh me? Oh, oh, heavens no, heavens no. Of course, I didn't take any pictures of that either."
  Promo voice: "It's the Tom Leykis Show on Mojo Radio, the all new AM 730."
  (b) At approximately 3:50 p.m., George calls Tom Leykis:
  George: "I feel like a failure. I met this girl, a beautiful girl - she can grace the cover of Playboy any day.great sex, the best sex I've ever had, but, like they all are, she's a bitch, complaining and all that. . I want to get rid of her . but she's probably the most beautiful girl I'll probably ever have in my life. I don't love her, I only love the sex. How do I get rid of a girl where the sex is so good, she's so God-damned good looking . We were engaged, but I broke that off . now I find myself getting back at her by urinating in her soda at her apartment and her shampoo bottles. That's the only way I can get back at her. I've got some issues, I know."
  Tom: "Ya, you don't need to do stuff like that. but let me ask you a couple of questions: have you ever complimented her?"
  George: "Yes."
  Tom: "Why?"
  George: "Because I'm whipped. I wanna get rid of her but I can't."
  Tom: "The first thing you need to do is stop complimenting her. Stop telling her how beautiful she is. There's nothing in it for a man to tell a woman she's beautiful. . What you're doing is giving her ammunition to be a bitch. The more you tell her she's beautiful the more she knows she's got you by the balls."
  George: "It's the sex that's got me by the balls."
  Tom: "You want to hit it as many times as you can and then you want to keep hitting it and use her as bait to get other hot chicks. When other hot chicks see you with her, they will want to compete with her for your attention. Once you manage to snag one of them, then you kick her through the uprights."
  Tom: "You have to keep her insecure. The way to keep a woman from becoming a bitch is to make her doubt her own attractiveness. Make her doubt her own self worth. Women like that cook dinner for you. They rub your feet . treat them with the back of your hand - I don't mean literally, I mean figuratively."
  (c) At approximately 4:40 p.m., Robert calls Tom Leykis:
  Robert: ".I have a good one for you. I met this chick, better than a year ago.I rented her the apartment above my garage and shortly thereafter I started banging her and all of a sudden she says ' I'm pregnant '. So, she's putting the pressure on me, she wants to go get married . so, I chuck the Hail Mary pass and on Wednesday I made the touchdown. Now the funny thing is, I've got the medical records to prove that that kid was not mine. I've been snipped for six years. That's thirteen consecutive check-ups - I've had zero sperm count . and she's wanting to rope me in. I don't think so you bitch."
  Tom: "You got her to have an abortion? .That slut! . That God-damned slut!"
  Robert: "Whoever that was I hope you're listening because you owe me, you son-of-a-bitch. Somebody owes me big."
  .
  [in reference to the woman] "Guess what baby, you just signed your own death warrant."
  .
  ".I tell you what man, I'm walking on clouds."
  Tom: "I love that. You nailed the bitch for the rest of us."
  Robert: "I hope I've done a service."
  Tom: "You certainly have. "
  Robert: "I'm here to serve."
  Tom: "I'm swollen with pride."
  Robert: "I tell you what, I'm swollen with something else at the moment." . "Does that qualify me for an advanced degree in 101?"
  Tom: "You kidding me? I think that puts you in the Hail Mary Hall of Fame!" . "That's the best Hail Mary story we've heard."
  (d) At approximately 5:00 p.m., Colin calls Tom Leykis:
  Colin: "I just want to tell you I've been listening to your show since I was six years old. I listen to it in the car [with his dad] all the time."
  Tom: "I love that."
  Colin: "Now I listen to it on my own."
  Tom: "You're twelve now. Tell everybody what you have learned - some of the most important things you've learned here."
  Colin: "How women are bitches and you can't trust them.at least most of 'em are."
  Tom: "Have you had any experience yourself at this point?"
  Colin: "Not yet.but I'll know how to use it in the future."
  Tom: "What will you do that will be different from everybody else?"
  Colin: "Just everything you tell us."
  Tom: "I love that. . Can you imagine what a great life you're going to have as an adult knowing all this information before you get there?"
  . [brief exchange that reveals that Colin's parents aren't together anymore]
  Tom: "Remember that you've got to be an a-hole yourself. That's the bottom line. That's how you get chicks. Remember, that's what your mom fell in love with. Never forget that. So no matter how much of an a-hole you think your dad is, that's what your mom fell in love with. So remember, that's what the girls love. If you're nice to them, they treat you like crap."
  ".twelve years old. I'm so proud of you. I couldn't be more proud of you if you were my own son."
  (e) At approximately 5:30 p.m., Monica calls Tom Leykis:
  Monica: ". I keep on telling my husband that I'm fat.I'm 5'2" and about 116 pounds. He [her husband] says I look good and don't have to worry about it."
  Tom: "I think the person to determine whether or not you're fat is you. You need to determine that . I can't see you. It may all be in your bazooms, I don't know. You may have, like, huge knockers and you may be thin all over. I don't know. Where are you fat? What part of your body is fat? ... Why don't you send us a picture? We'll take a look."
  . [caller agrees to send in a picture by email]
  Tom: ".Make sure the picture is revealing enough.we gotta see the whole thing.wear a bikini or something. You don't even have to shave. Just send us the bikini picture.or without the bikini, whichever you prefer."
  .
  "Do you have a thumper yet? [note that the thumper is a sex toy discussed in an earlier call] You've got the thumper, the digital camera.Gary would like you to send one doggy style, as well. Would you do that?"
  Monica: "I don't think that'll be okay."
  Tom: ".well we gotta see your butt. You might have a fat butt. I mean, we gotta see everything. . Make sure there's enough exposed skin."
  [Tom ends the call but continues discussion]
  Tom: "Anyone else? If you want to know if you're fat, send those naked pictures in. We will tell you, one way or the other. By the way, if you want to know if your boobs are too big, we'll also help with that. Just send that in.it's kind of a service we run here: you send in your picture of your breasts, we will tell you if they're too big or not.Anyone using the thumper, if you've got video of that send that right in.and by the way, if you think your nipples are too big or too weird looking, send us a picture. We promise to get back to you."
  ".If you think that between your legs, you've got a pastrami sandwich going on there, you know, layers and layers of meat and you're wondering if it's too much, why don't you just send a picture of it in. We'll tell you. I can tell you if there's too much meat down there. By the way, I dated a chick that was concerned that it looked like a roast beef sandwich down there. She actually said that. She said she was going to a doctor to have some of it removed. What are you doing? Put a little horseradish on it! Or Russian dressing.
  .send in those photos and the staff will take a look and we'll get back to you promptly."
  Footnotes:
 1The Commission notes that these matters are also covered in the Canadian Association of Broadcasters' (CAB) Sex-role portrayal code for television and radio programming, and in the CAB's Code of Ethics, both of which the licensee is expected to adhere to as a member of the CBSC.

2Complaints regarding CKCU-FM Broadcast of "You Suck" song at 3 P.M. on 26 June 1994, as part of 6.5 hours of Gay & Lesbian Programming, CRTC letter to the licensee dated 31 January 1995.

Date Modified: 2004-06-04

Date modified: