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

Ah, I was unaware of that. I just get a stupid "Good news Buddy, Canadians can watch South Park episodes at thecomedynetwork.ca" or something to that effect no matter what video I try to watch there and I didn't see any reference to what you said when I looked. I was going by the news clip I saw this morning that said they'd be showing it uncensored on the website. Hooray for fact-checkers. On the bright side I can still stream the superfriends episode from thecomedynetwork.ca. Does that make us more free than you now? I think it might. Excellent, it's all falling into place...


edit: I almost posted something about wondering how long till drawing Mohammad or photoshopping drawings of him into pictures. (ie Mohammad photo-bombs.... teehee) Should've known that if I thought of something the internet has already thought of it first. Everybody draw Mohammad day. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/04/22/everybody-draw-mohammed-day

 

Here's my take. This doesn't seem like a freedom of speech thing as much as a hostage situation. If this episode were censored by the government it would be a freedom of speech violation. Instead, what happened is a group of fanatics took a company (comedy central) hostage by threatening violence against it's employees. In return for the release of the hostages (by not killing the employees), they demanded that the company censor something that it otherwise wouldn't censor. The company basically gave terrorists what they demanded in return for the safety of the employees. Typical hostage negotiation with terrorists. There is a reason the federal government does not negotiate with terrorists. When you start doing that, it only invites more of the same behavior you want to avoid. Others see that you're willing to do what they want if you only threaten violence against them, so all you have to do is threaten violence in order to get your way.

Maybe the slippery slope argument is a little too much, but I don't give a fuck. What's stopping any organization from threatening violence to not be offended? Why wont this thing with CC just invite more violent threats the next time someone does something offensive? Obviously it works. I guess CC acted logically by trying to protect their employees, but they're chicken shit too. And ultimately, I fear that their actions will only invite more and more of the same type of violence that 99% of the world doesn't want to see, but passively allows the other 1% to perpetuate by not taking a stand against it.

 

There's a bigger context here than just Matt and Trey. The Danes (seriously, the Danes of all fucking people), in a display of journalistic [Danish word for testicles] like I've never seen, commissioned and ran the original political cartoons purely as a journalistic defense of free press against what they felt was an encroaching reluctance to offend Islam that had begun to impact the media's ability to do its job effectively.

statement by editor of the Danish newspaper:

The response? Mass protest, death threats to the editors and the cartoonists, the burning of the Danish and Norweigan (poor Norway, all white people look the same) embassies in Syria and the Danish embassy in Beirut, as well as attempted murder.

And by and large the west didn't have Denmark's back. There was some solidarity with a few other papers reprinting the cartoons, but ultimately what should have been every newspaper and television station from Los Angeles to Moscow reprinting the cartoons, was instead mostly met with apprehension and the same cover your ass attitude that Comedy Central displayed. It was a classic "First they came for the Danish Cartooning Assholes, but I did not speak up because I was not an asshole who drew cartoons in Denmark" moment.

With that in mind, Trey and Matt weren't picking a fight that wasn't theirs, or risking lives for some silly joke, they were consciously and intentionally criticizing the widespread media [lack of] response, while simultaneously putting themselves out there to be rallied around, because no one else would.

 

I like how we are ripping Comedy Central a new one for censorship as it's easy to speak in hyptheticals. Just as it's easy to put your hypotheticall employees lives at risk.

If everyone believes so strongly that the Muslims are full of it, start a fucking blog about it. Write a cartoon of Mohammed, do something about it. Don't get me wrong, I love freedom of speech. But there's a reason incidents like this make headlines, very few have the balls to do it. And by very few, I'm excluding everyone on this board.

It's nothing to be ashamed of, but even Jon Stewart didn't have many (or any Mohammed explicit) clips from his show. Nor did Bill Maher in Religulous. They're walking a very fine line between displaying their freedom of speech, but not crossing over to the point of painting a target on one's back.
.

You can sing Fuck You on television, but if you really have balls, post a pic of Mohammed or outright criticize the religion. Stop teetering around the fire and jump in.

 

Parker and Stone tried, and were stopped. That's the point of the thread. They were willing to try and cross that fine line, and were prevented from doing so. That is the problem.

South Park gets millions of viewers and makes headlines every week. My blog doesn't. There is a difference between a pair of leading satirists using a powerful medium to make a point and some anonymous Joe Schmuckface sounding off on Blogspot.

 

I reckon that if they want to do it, they have to do it themselves, because endangering the lives of those who work for Comedy Central to have their point made isn't cool.

I side with Comedy Central and you can call me a pussy or whatever you like. Fact of the matter is that there are lives at stake and the ends don't justify the means, especially when some of the folks who are likely to be targeted might not have anything to do with it. Collateral damage at its worst, and especially when the reason is almost mundane. I mean really, is it fuckin' necessary to do something you know will piss off a shitload of people for little to no gain? What is the cause being fought for here? The right to do whatever the fuck you please for the sake of entertainment? I wouldn't want any part of it, myself.

Now, if Matt and Trey were to find a way to broadcast their show on their own dime, and they*, and only they, were responsible for the blowback, then that's another story. Fighting for a cause is all well and good, but dragging innocents into the crossfire isn't.

*This also includes anyone affliated with their production, and assumes they are alright with the risk

 

I never post on serious threads like this because the reason I come here is to:

• Look at tits.
  Bitch about my day.
  Feel better about myself knowing that I'm not some of you.

Which is why I'm posting here now. The fact that I'm allowed a place to say or write whatever comes across my brain makes me proud to be an American. And I'm thankful that I have the forum to do so. Even if one of the mods is a dirty ol' Canadian.

The thing that absolutely blows my mind is that there are people out there that feel it's okay to censor themselves because it makes them feel safer or doesn't offend anybody. They not only think it's ok, but it's right to do so. It isn't right to do so. Men and women have fought and died for our continued right to raise our middle fingers to whoever the fuck we want to. Comedy Central bowed down to a bunch of radicals who probably haven't done anything more dangerous than eating a Dorito with their left hand after taking a shit. The fact that they didn't go to bat for two of their own guys pisses me off.

It's a good thing I don't run Comedy Central or Viacom. I probably would have put on a Mohammad test pattern with an audio loop of Jon Stewart telling these pieces of shit to go fuck themselves. I don't know about you, but I'd rather live free and deal with the consequences than live in fear and bow down to a bunch of fucking crazies.

 

My jaded 1.5 cents:

This is just a business decision vis-a-vis a contractual agreement, and I have no misconceptions about any such corporation like fucking Comedy Central / Viacom being anything close to central in the rally of free speech heard 'round the globe. I'd feel different if someone like Salman Rushdie, free of any such contractual obligation, ran back to his hidden garret and censored the Satanic Verses, which Viking then re-issued at a discounted rate for us new, Allah-friendly infidels to patiently devour. In short, South Park creators sold their shit to a corporation and now can not bitch otherwise.

 

The Danes cartoons were miniscule compared to South Park and they made headlines. Blogs make headlines all the time, if the material is significant and/or clever.

Anyways, your circulation (or lack thereof) isn't a reason not to address it and is a cop out if it's something you feel that strongly about but don't.

 

Beefy Phil you have asked "if not south park then who?" numerous times. Why not you? Why aren't you standing on street corners preaching about free speech. Yes, you are here condemning South Park for having censored this episode, but you have not stood up to Islamic extremists threatening your friends and colleagues. That is why not South Park. Sure, you can fault them for not having the balls (or maybe it's stupidity) to stand up to terrorism, but if a bunch of terrorists were threatening your place of work, would you be comfortable going there the next day?

 

But for clarity, it wasn't as though there was an instant response of rioting and violence. The cartoons were seen by a local cleric who started firing off letters to the editor and government officials trying to get them to apologize. These were met with silence, so he started mailing ambassadors from islamic countries, who then collectively pressured the prime minister for a meeting to issue and apology; the prime minister told them he had no business dealing with what a private newspaper published. And once all these ridiculous demands were not met, they cartoons were distributed - with other offensive cartoons - back to the muslim world, where massive riots and protests took place in countries where riots and protests aren't normally even allowed to take place. I'm sure we all saw that famous sign, "Behead those who say Islam is a violent religion", right? I think that was from a protest in England.

In Canada, a magazine that published the cartoon was taken to a human rights tribunal by some muslim clerics or another. Thankfully their suit was thrown out of court.

As for the point that "innocent people will die!", I find it thoroughly unconvincing. Innocent people could die when you drive your car and don't hit the brake fast enough. Innocent people die in train and plane crashes; would any of you want to work for an airline and have to explain to the victims' families that it was your plane that crashed?

I think Thomas Jefferson said it best:

Better a few lives lost than our collective freedom. I'm not trying to be glib or flippant, and I'm not even a fan of South Park, but we can't decide what to say and not say based on who is going to get killed over it. Like I said in my previous post, if a news organization has important news that, upon release, will result in riots and violence and death, should it keep quiet because the editor might have to explain to some family members why it was more important for them to publish a story instead of their husband/brother/father to be alive?

 

Yes, they perfectly predicted this happening. Once you pander to one group, then you must pander to all groups that then ask.


I understand that Comedy Central can choose to censor what they air on their channel, but the contract between Parker-Stone and Comedy Central (viacom) is also (probably) willingly made. Personally I would have drawn the line in the sand at the first controversial Muhammed episode, and taken my business elsewhere if MY demands weren't met.

But then again, my family has a good habit for picking losing fights. And taking Southpark to another channel would have been a hell of a legal battle. But that would be the price for not living on my knees.

 

I'm old enough to remember when Rushdie first had the fatwa announced against him for Satanic Verses. And the Danish cartoon got a lot of coverage in Australia at the time.

We don't have an explicit Bill of Rights in Australia; it's implied. We have no guaranteed freedom of speech here in the way that the US does, but it's taken as granted that we have (which causes all sorts of fun when people try to legally rely on a Bill of Rights that doesn't exist).

All that aside, and from an outsider's perspective, there's a few things that seem to have gotten lost in rush here:

1. Freedom of Speech is guaranteed by law, but so is the freedom not to say something. The South Park guys are free to say whatever they like but, subject to the terms of their contract, the broadcaster is also free to say (or not say) whatever they like. It's already been pointed out that Parker and Stone could create their own website and post their uncensored episode. As soon as you ask someone else to broadcast it, when it's their voice, their freedom of choice comes into it. If the guys want to poke a hornet's nest, it's unfair for them to hold someone's hand to do it. As stated, this would depend on the terms of the contract - which I'm sure is well thumbed and underlined, given the capacity for South Park to edge play.

2. Without labelling, when you have a group that shows a propensity to retalliatory violence you have fair warning. That's not an argument for, or against, pandering to their will. Rather, it's a statement to say that when you have been warned expect the consequences. If you can bear the consequences, go for it. But never claim that you weren't warned, or cry that it's unfair. In an analogy, if I tell you that I'll punch you if you spit in my face then expect to cop an ass whupping if you do. Lashing out at someone without warning is one thing, giving fair warning is another. Before anyone starts arguing, see 3.

3. Just because a level of response seems inordinate to you, don't expect that the other party will agree. Different groups (religious, political, ethnic, sexual, whatever) place different weights on different things. Extremists of any nature will, naturally, be extreme in their views on what is an appropriate response. Within a society of laws, law abiding citizens will curb their responses accordingly. This could be by social laws as well as by legislative. For example; if a guy knocks up your daughter, while you might want to make him eat a bellyful of shotgun pellets, societal norms mean you would instead point it at him while he marries her. If you have someone who doesn't follow society's rules or exists outside that society; the responses that make sense to them could be vastly different. In this particular case, it could seem infinitely appropriate that the "insult" warrants a killing.

There's a big failing, and it exists on both sides of every fence there is, that people often don't realise that not everyone has the same mindset. As a matter of default, we often think that the way we think is the way everyone else thinks.

 

Wow, this is bullshit. Group A intends on pursuing behaviour that is entirely legal and visits no actual harm upon anyone. Group B then threatens to perform an illegal act upon Group A if they pursue that behaviour. Nevermind the fact that the mere making of a threat is illegal in and of itself.

How is it fair to threaten to kill people, and bomb their offices and homes? It's not fair to threaten Trey and Stone, it's not fair to threaten employees of Comedy Central, or their offices or property. Gain some perspective, here: the problem is not the people insulting Islam, the problem is the variety of Islam that reacts with extreme violence to its sacred cows.

I mean, honestly, how do you expect to be taken seriously when you say that it falls within the category of acceptable behaviour because warning was given. How's this for a warning: if you post in this thread again, I'm going to find out where you live and fire bomb your house. You were warned! Hope you have insurance.

 

Aaaaand the first person not to read the last sentence, and therefore item 3. I wasn't arguing it was right, I was just stating it.

Normally I wouldn't bother posting a response to this, but I think it's a good illustration of failing to completely look at a situation before going off about it.

 

No, I read your post. Your third paragraph was nothing but snivelling moral relevancy. I live in a country where freedom of speech isn't codified in the constitution as it is in the U.S., but you can't honestly tell me that both sides of the fence are equally at fault in this situation. Freedom of speech, the very basis of Western society, does not compromise, especially not to small-minded thugs who throw a tantrum when certain types of freedom of speech are exercised. This is contrary to the entire point of having freedom of speech in the first place.

Your examples are flawed. Threatening to punch me in the face if I spit in yours is one thing; threatening to kill me if I express a certain opinion is right fucked, and if you can't see the difference between threatening to assault me if I assault you and threatening to murder me if I say something, then I don't know what to say to you. Wanting to kill a young man because he knocked up your daughter is one thing; actually killing him is quite another. And that is orders of magnitude different, again, from killing someone because they exercised freedom of speech.

I'm not sure what your point is about making the case for it being "acceptable" or not. What are you trying to say? You're certainly not making the simple observation that the people making the threats here are backwards and in need of a serious reform of both their opinions and priorities. You've said, quite clearly, that it's okay and fair to engage in illegal behaviour to exact revenge for legal behaviour as long as you give warning, and that both sides of the debate (freedom of speech vs. tyranny) are equally at fault for being extremists, and presumably, that we need to be more understanding of the sensitivities of the people who would threaten to kill us for daring to criticize them.

 

I don't know what you read of my post, but I didn't defend either side or say that anything is okay. The point I was trying to make is that you can't expect everyone to abide by your own set of standards. The examples I gave weren't global to the situation, but rather to facets of it. There are countries and belief systems out there where it's commonplace and accepted to do such things as cut hands off thieves, behead felons, circumcise women, stone rape victims to death and eat dogs. Some people agree with that. Most people find it abhorrent. Go ask a Hindu how they feel about you eating a hamburger.

Different strokes for different folks. That's my point.

These people believe it is their requirement to seek out and destroy anyone who criticises their religion. To you and I, that's wrong. To them, it's as natural as breathing. I'm only saying; understand the mindset. Not to accept it as rational or acceptable.

To categorically put my personal thoughts out there; if they can't take a joke, fuck them. Preferably with a lead enema.

 

Ok my two cents.

Did South Park have the right to create that episode?
Yes, they did. Legally they were with in their rights.

Did Comedy Central have the right to censor it?
Yes, they have a contract with South Park, and they can refuse to air anything they see as "inflammatory". What ever the Fuck that means.

Did Revolution Islam have the right to be offended by the cartoon?
They are allowed to feel how ever they like about the cartoon.

I guess I just can't understand why they would go so far as to threaten Violence, and why they can't have legal action brought against them for it.

I see it this way, I hate Harlequin Novels, but I've never threatened to burn down the publishing company. I just don't buy the books. If they were upset about how South Park portrayed Islam, then stop watching South Park or Comedy Central.



The rest of my $1.50
Comedy Central should have aired the episode uncut because you can't give in to the threats of one group with out also having to then do it for everyone else.

Do you really think that anyone that had anything to do with that episode had no idea that there might be a backlash? They made the decision to be involved. It was their decision to make.

Isn't that what South Park was trying to do? I'm making a muhammad in a bear suit T-shirt to wear in protest. If I get shot, then so be it. At least I'll have stood up for something in my life.

 

If there's one thing I will not do, it's attempt to understand the mind that mutilates the genitals of children, stones rape victims, or refuses to eat meat. As for what I read into your post, these things might have been what led me to that conclusion:

The idea that a bit of fair warning excuses upcoming behaviour is just flat-out ridiculous. There was no fair warning, for example, about the Danish cartoons, but that doesn't make what happened any more or less repugnant.

I am entirely aware that how I think is not how other people think. Reasonable people can disagree within bounds, but the way we do it in the first world - freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of the press - is at the very least the best way anyone has come up with, and it's safe to say that the way the Muslim world does it - treating women like goats, genital mutilation, enforced morality - is flat-out wrong. I don't care that they're offended by criticism, or that their worldview is different, or that they consider it acceptable and normal to kill people who disagree with them. They can go get fucked, without qualification. Call it a different paradigm if you will, but I wouldn't trust anyone who says that we can't criticize their paradigm or objectively say that it is not equal with ours.