Adult Content Warning

This community may contain adult content that is not suitable for minors. By closing this dialog box or continuing to navigate this site, you certify that you are 18 years of age and consent to view adult content.

"No, that's ignorant. You're being ignorant."

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Beefy Phil, Apr 23, 2010.

  1. Mike Ness

    Mike Ness
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,003
    I hate to see censorship in any form. I would really hate to see innocent people harmed because they worked on a cartoon that offended a specific group. I think many of you hit the nail on the head when you said "it's not their fight to fight" I don't think Trey and Matt should be the one's to make this battle.

    Unfortunately if you support free speech you have to take the good with the bad, morons like David Duke and other racist fools have hid behind it for years.

    I really hate to see South Park censored though, they have made fun of everything and everyone and this is the one they finally get censored on?? I'm sure it bothers allot of people.
     
  2. Beefy Phil

    Beefy Phil
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    5
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,618
    Again, if not 'South Park', then who?
     
  3. Nettdata

    Nettdata
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    1,706
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    17,194
    For those of you keeping track at home, the terrorists HAVE won.

    And it's because WE HAVE LET THEM.

    Society has become pussified, and is catering to the weak and easily offended/worried.
     
  4. Mike Ness

    Mike Ness
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,003
    I don't know if I can really answer that. I would assume someone with more of a political affiliation but again I'm not sure.

    It's such a sensitive subject, you can't help but immediately relate it to terrorism, which then kind of makes it look like South Park takes on terrorism, which looks like a comedic cartoon fighting one of the most sensitive topics in American Society today.

    I'm not disagreeing with you, it just doesn't seem or feel right. What if the worst happened and they did not censor the cartoon causing a direct repercussion because of it? Would it have been worth it? I'm sure many feel that they will attack anyway so why bother with censoring but then again why instigate it, is airing a cartoon that important?

    I'm not quite sure, excellent thread though.
     
  5. Mike Ness

    Mike Ness
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,003

    That is the tough pill we have to swallow and acknowledge, no other group could have this affect.
     
  6. hawkeyenick

    hawkeyenick
    Expand Collapse
    Experienced Idiot

    Reputation:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    129
    Agreed. Sure these people may not have joined the military to fight for the freedoms that Americans enjoy, but why is it that we expect there to be no sacrifice or risk simply because we may not be a part of the military. If these freedoms are important to Americans, and they should be, then when given the choice to either stand up for them or bow to the demands of extremists, then those with the opportunity should stand up for the freedoms they enjoy. I understand the fear the Comedy Central executives were feeling, but when you hold the kind of influence a cable channel has, it is your duty to show that Americans aren't going to be intimidated by a bunch of morons who distort the teachings of their religion.
    In these episodes, South Park had Buddha doing lines of coke and talked about Jesus having a porn addiction. To say that just having Mohammed on screen is offensive is ridiculous, and to bow to the empty threats of pathetic people like the extremists just makes me sad that enough Americans aren't willing to stand up for the freedoms we claim to hold dear. If we really cherish these things, then we need to tell the extremists to fuck off and that their religion holds no priority over freedom in America.
     
  7. Beefy Phil

    Beefy Phil
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    5
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,618
    You're distinguishing between who can say what and for which reasons. That's not freedom of speech. That's selective privilege. How is that distinction is made without prejudice?

    What if the worst happened? People would have died in a terrorist attack because their demands weren't met. You know what is inevitably going to happen somewhere at some point in the future for one reason or another? People will die in terrorist attacks because their demands weren't met.
     
  8. MoreCowbell

    MoreCowbell
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    14
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,185

    You assume that the total number of terrorist attacks is known, and that only its distribution is unknown. That an SP-related terrorist attack is interchangeable with another unrelated attack, because they are elements of the same sum. I see no logical basis for such an assumption.



    Nobody infinged Parker or Stone's freedom of speech. Comedy Central simply chose to exercise THEIR freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a right granted to members of the body public. It is not a given in employer-employee relations.
     
  9. gtg2k

    gtg2k
    Expand Collapse
    Experienced Idiot

    Reputation:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
    Messages:
    170
    Location:
    The House That Lawler Built
    Let me reiterate this: Freedom of speech is not protecting the messages that you like. It's the messages you don't like. Holocaust deniers, white and black separatists, Westboro Baptist Church: all of these (and more) are groups I vehemently disagree with, things that I feel are the very essence of evil, and are things that I want removed from the earth. However, I still believe in giving them their right to speak. I have the right to tell others these people are evil, they have the right to spread their message.

    In this vein, South Park should have been allowed to do their thing, just as we're giving those fanatical a**holes the right to celebrate 9/11. To quote the rednecks of South Park: "If yew don't like it, yew kin GIT OUT!"
     
  10. Beefy Phil

    Beefy Phil
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    5
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,618
    Through threats of violence, these people intimidated an entity into censoring its employees. Parker and Stone were not free to express themselves in the manner of their choosing. That is a fundamental impingement on their freedom of speech. How is that deniable?
     
  11. MoreCowbell

    MoreCowbell
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    14
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,185
    Because freedom of speech does not exist between freely acting members of civil society. It is an element of the social contract between the governing and the governed.


    You speak as if Comedy Central were a nation state. It is not. It is an autonomous commercial body within a nation state that, within the laws of the land, is free to dictate the terms of its own employment contracts as it sees fit.
     
  12. Beefy Phil

    Beefy Phil
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    5
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,618

    Can you expand on this? I don't think I understand your meaning.
     
  13. MoreCowbell

    MoreCowbell
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    14
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,185
    Simply put, an employee of a private commercial body does not have 'freedom of speech' with regards to employer-imposed restraint on their actions and speech.

    Parker and Stone have no more of an inherent right to have anything broadcast than a bartender does to wear clothing with pictures of aborted fetuses on it.

    They have a right to produce and air whatever content they choose, free from government coercion. Just like the bartender can wear that shirt when walking around the town.

    They do not have a right to force Comedy Central to do so against its own judgment.


    You can argue that CC should or should not have broadcast (I lean, despite what I've posted, towards "should"). But they have no inherent requirement to do so, and to decide not to is not contrary to Parker or Stone's rights.
     
  14. Beefy Phil

    Beefy Phil
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    5
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,618
    The issue is larger than what Comedy Central was or was not legally entitled to do. This is about the fact that a major media network chose to censor itself. It opted to relinquish its right to broadcast the program of its choosing in the face of coercion. Not by its own government, but by a handful of individuals who brandished the possibility of retaliation. That's way more frightening than a bomb threat. They didn't even have to follow through on it. Hinting at it was enough to have the network cowering. So they aren't exactly free to do what they want, are they? Their boundaries are being defined by criminals rather than the law of the land.
     
  15. Kubla Kahn

    Kubla Kahn
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    441
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    8,756

    It is really sad that major news organizations, like CNN, have had articles with open dialog on the subject. Yet still say that the terrorist were only "warning" South Park when they seem to be out right DEATH THREATS. Why coddle muslim extremist? The soft PC bullshit of todays media is pretty sad.
     
  16. MoreCowbell

    MoreCowbell
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    14
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,185

    You seem awfully jumpy to tell CC what they should or should not do with their own private property.

    If CC had broadcast the episode as given, I would have been first in line to call them courageous. But I don't see why they shouldn't be free to protect the safety of their employees.

    Who decided that Comedy Central had a social obligation to do anything? We aren't talking about CNN or the New York Times here. We're talking about the home of Crank Yankers and Mind of Mencia. Why are they OBLIGATED to broadcast the show? They aren't PBS. They're not some sort of social trust. They're private individuals.
     
  17. Beefy Phil

    Beefy Phil
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    5
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,618
    You're treating it like it was independent choice that they would have made without being threatened, when that is clearly not the case. They didn't say, "We don't care about the extremists, we just don't feel like showing the episode." They said, "As a result of those threats, we will not show the episode." They are already being told what to do with their private property and they are complying.

    I really wish someone would answer my question. If Comedy Central, a subsidiary of Viacom, the third largest media conglomerate on the planet, is not responsible for exercising its freedom of expression, who the hell is? Who should be saying these things? Please, someone, tell me.
     
  18. MoreCowbell

    MoreCowbell
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    14
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,185
    Let me rephrase: you seem awfully quick to condemn them for not risking the lives of themselves and others. I'm glad you're willing to play Fundamentalist Islamic Roulette with your life. I commend that sort of attitude; assuming sincerity, it is a brave one. But I do not condemn those who are more risk averse, and who value their lives and family more than they value making a statement. It is not an irrational viewpoint.

    You assign them responsibilities they do not have.
     
  19. Sponge

    Sponge
    Expand Collapse
    Village Idiot

    Reputation:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    38

    Exactly. Now if the fcc or the government had required Comedy Central to censor that episode we'd have a freedom of speech debate. As it stands there is nothing to prevent Trey and Matt from exercising their right to free speech by showing that episode uncut and uncensored on their own studio website. Though I assume there's likely some contractual time-delay involved so that comedy central can get their moneys worth on a replay or two before they have to compete.

    What makes this whole thing even more retarded in my opinion is that they already did an episode where Muhammad was shown uncensored did they not? Wasn't he one of the suprebestfriends? I don't remember that being censored.

    [​IMG]
     
  20. Beefy Phil

    Beefy Phil
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    5
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,618
    Incorrect. Try to watch the episode on South Park Studios. They clearly state that Comedy Central has refused to give them permission to air the episode uncensored. They have also removed other episodes from the website that reference Muhammad.

    You still haven't answered my question. I wasn't being rhetorical when I asked where the line should be drawn. At which point would you say, "Enough is enough" and agree to deal with the consequences of free speech, including the possibility of attack? When does it suddenly become 'worth it'?