Just wondering in a society that values free speech and expression should anyone be evicted for using 'inappropriate language'.
Since the infamous Jade Goody / Shilpa Shetty series BB has been scared witless to allow anyone to show any true predujices they may harbour to the point where the utterance of certain words (some of them not even fully known as offensive) can seem to invoke an instant yellow or red card.
I'm not racist sexist or what ever ist else but to me if someone is then let them show it and be judged by the public seeing this.
If someone is bullying then I agree it should be addressed but ultimately if someone is ist they will be committing career suicide so let them.
I personally think the whole thing is coming to a point where we're not seeing the true people, and it's censorship gone mad iin some instances and maybe that should allowed.

Just putting this out there to gauge a view

It's a tricky one, but I'd say that if we are to judge people as they are, then no. You'd like to think that the British voters would evict people like that.
But the big problem is that often things don't always work like that.

With the Shilpa Shetty series, the report from Ofcom criticised BB not for showing scenes of bullying and possibly covert racism, but for not showing things in a correct context so that viewers could judge the reality properly. There were horrible things which were left out which weren't even in the edited HL shows. Some of those scenes, according to Ofcom would have provided missing context. BB's main problem seemed to be that they kept denying that anything bad was going on. I remember seeing many statements from that scruffy producer guy at the time who kept denying that some of the horribleness was occurring.

There are times when a housemate has said or done something questionable, and you'd like to think that BB are intelligent enough and mature enough to handle the situation accordingly. Really make the housemate aware of the situation and truly make them think about it seriously. But from what I've seen the diary room chats with them sound so weak and insipid, that the housemate is almost laughing at them, and then they go back into the house not taking things seriously at all. So it's no surprise that it then all goes pear-shaped.
They occasionally eject people, but I think that if they showed enough fortitude in the first place it wouldn't need to get to that stage. You get the feeling that the diary room person is some green behind the ears new employee who's just left university from some media studies course and really doesn't know how to handle people properly and mediate a situation.

And it certainly doesn't help when you can see the kinds of things BB promote to get the viewers tuning in. They say that they take certain matters 'very seriously' but the particular manner in which they promote the show, and the opinions expressed on BB's other media platforms such as BOTS tell an entirely different story.
.
To answer your question, in the spirit of what BB should be, then no. But I guess if you want pretend reality where BB controls everything just in case it might offend, then yes.

There is a huge difference between freedom of speech and being abusive. Before entering the house contestants are hired and paid for there so called celebrity status. Part of that contract is the rules about abusive language and threatening behaviour.
The difficulty arises around use of certain language and the context in how it's used.
Ken never expressed freedom of speech he was just generally abusive, sitting down or having a conversation gives opportunity of freedom of speech stomping round a house and throwing out comments or statements to others in the context he did was just abusive. Had the conversation about the telephone call had been the first time he had used the N word he would have been given a warning. But the fact was he had used the word in a derogatory way previously followed by another derogatory word about duel heritage children. He had been warned not to use the word again he deliberately then used the word in a conversation about a telephone conversation. Ken is not a stupid man in fact far from it he knew exactly what he was doing.
When Alexander used the F word again he knows full well the terminology of the word and to which context he had used it. He fully accepted he was wrong to use the the word and if anything I think he was disappointed in himself for lowering himself to use a homophobic slur. I do think he was pushed and pushed which is no excuse for the use of the word however I think BB has allowed other behaviours which are just as bad to continue without intervention creating a poisonous atmosphere.
Celebrity BB profile has steadily risen over the years in the sense following Vanessa breakdown CBB struggled to get anyone for a number of years. C5 has done well to turn it around over the past few years but I think this series will knock it back and they might struggle to get anyone on the next series aoart from the so called celebrity reality stars again who have no real career to damage. Mud sticks and so far three people have left the house under circumstances that can negatively impact on there career.

I agree there is a difference between freedom of speech and abusiveness but the problem I have is the way abusiveness is promoted unless a certain trigger word is invoked. BB has no issue with anyone being outwardly abusive to any housemate, the whole way noms have been handled this year just prove that, Face to Face is doe purely to get that type of rise. Katie H calling Alicia thick is abusive, Perez provoking Alex is abusive, tbh anyone can be offended by anything and in someways that is the game Perez is playing. He’ll provoke, get the reaction he wants (even smile about it) before going into the diary room to feign tears and demand action. The Ken one is a tricky one for me, the word used is one that although not really PC or current isn’t the’N’ word and was deemed acceptable until recently. This actually provoked a discussion with my 70 year old Mum who was lost for what was acceptable, she is no way racist but thought black was offensive and coloured was the pc correct term!!! I’m not saying Ken didn’t know what he was doing by the way.

For me the censorship is becoming ridiculous, as I say show the thing 24/7, allow people to see people warts and all and judge them, they will be hung by the press, the public and ultimately the hirers. If the sanitisation carries on it will get to the point where no one will be prepared to speak and I suppose it will become the true Orwellian Big Brother

The offensive words were broadcast so there was no censorship. BB rules were broken, hence the punishments.

Its a very good question OP and not one that is easy to say this or that in a categorical way.

My view is that we need to rethink this lexical approach to tolerance. Words are not racist. Words are random strings of abstract sounds used to convey a meaning.. And even then that isn't the whole story, meaning is not derived from words alone.

Its as if we think that by eliminating a set of words we eliminate racism. Not so. It is perfectly possible to convey racial hatred without using any of the outlawed words. Equally it is possible to use the n word, p word or whatever with no racist intent. The issue is not the word but the intent behind the word and the sentiments or belief system that drive the intent.

The fact the list of don't say exists and punishments are handed out invokes an element of censorship. The editing of the show and contracts written unnaturally censors this, if true free speech was allowed then public censorship would come to the fore.

Thats what I was trying to get across, you did in a much better way, saying an 'outlawed' word doesn't make you racist as much as not saying one makes you a pillar of society.
I've seen far more offensive behaviour in there and to some extents bigger shows of either bigotry / reverse bigotry from the HM's that haven't outwardly verbalised this.

Am I alone in never being offended?

I think a lot of viewers like to be offended. A housemate saying something racist , sexist or homophobic is a big story in BB as severe punishments will surely follow.

The show would be off air for good if housemates could just say anything without punishment.

Maybe?

Louis CK - I Enjoy Being White: http://youtu.be/iPVG4vgPWAc

no,. and i really try and share in the faux outrage which some viewers thrive on, but i just cant.
i really wonder if some people actually go out into the real world, and how they cope without being offended by the air they breathe?

anyone who complains to ofcom about big brother needs to re evaluate their lives

I'm sure something would offend you but I agree some people are far too easily offended to the point they want to be offended.
There is an element that hear things that don't offend them but feel they should be so jump on the bandwagon.

Why? Would it be anything that isn't shown in movies on TV. Would it be anything worse than a Trevor Mcdonald / louis theroux investigates. If it's that persons view let them be judged on it.

I mentioned in another post about TV shows mentioning these offensive words and yet people will watch.....even the offended. I suppose the main difference is that TV shows, films, books etc, have artistic license to say and do what they want all under the guise of 'fiction'.

They should never be thrown out for language or prejudice unless it is done to intimidate or upset another HM.

I don't think anyone would be thrown out for repeated use of the word 'childish'.

I've had a think about this and you may be right. Would I be offended by someone having a homophobic / racist rant, not really. I'd think they were a bigoted arse and they'll get there comeuppance.
I think the point can be made that people adjust their behaviour to suit the norms in BB. Just look at last year's winner Jim. The man made a career out of racism, was thrown out of a reality show for homophobic rants yet kept quiet about this in BB and won. If the rules hadn't existed would he have been the same?

I am pretty thick skinned, so it takes a lot to offend me, even more to be offended on somebody else's behalf. In an ideal world we would all be nice to each other.

I am tolerant of opinions I don't agree with, I can disagree and still be friends. I can dislike the words but still like other things about a person.

I think there should be more tolerance all round. People are so quick to jump on people with opinions different to their own. If I was overweight, unemployed through choice, and would still like Katie for her humour, and her no nonsense, get on with it attitude to life.

You should be thrown out for acting on them.

if the act is a violent one or classed as an attack then I agree.
If on the other hand it's done by someone smiling on their way to the DR only to enter start crying and say your worried for your safety when your obviously not then I don't think they should

And if you were Palestinian would you still be accepting of KH calling your dead children rodents?

I am far more offended by pernicious, insidious and entrenched ways of thinking than I am by someone flinging an insult.

I've come to notice in life that the people that never are offended are the demographic least subject to significant inequalities. However they tend to be incandescent with rage when a poppy is burnt at Wootton Bassett. They're never offended at things just THEIR thing.