South Park Censored

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
big boss
Posts: 589
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:59 am UTC

South Park Censored

Postby big boss » Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:56 am UTC

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/04/20/comedy-central-censors-south-park-episode-muslim-threats/

I'm really surprised that comedy central does not have the balls to stand up to these extremists. They should not let themselves be pushed around. Exceptions cannot just be made for one faith otherwise soon you will need to make exceptions for everyone. This makes me really mad.
"Starbuck, what do you hear?"
"Nothing but the Rain."

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby folkhero » Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:15 am UTC

It is pretty pathetic that Comedy Central won't even comment on the issue. If this really does make you mad, send CC an angry e-mail explaining why you are no longer going to watch any programming on their network, and make good on it. I've already started composing the letter in my head. I'll miss Colbert and the Daily Show, but I will be able to watch South Park at southparkstudios.com.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

Le1bn1z
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Le1bn1z » Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:15 am UTC

Wow.

We've really got to stop letting these ridiculous children push us around.

I mean, normally I don't go for the whole hyperbolic "They're killing our freedom" stuff, but in this case, its true.

Humour and Wit are the canary in the coal mine for democracy. One of the pillars for tyranny is closing off the rulers' totems to ridicule.

(Incidentally, I saw the episode, with nothing bleeped out, in Canada. It was hilarious. Mohammed was drawn as a stick figure, at one point.)

In the future, they might get around it by having one of his wives join the school (he married them young enough to be classified as a paedophile in contemporary society. She could be a slightly older kid at the school, and go on adventures with the other children, telling them about how wonderful her life with Glorious Prophet is.) Just a thought.
Krong writes: Code: Select all
transubstantiate(Bread b) {
Person p = getJesusPersonInstance();
p.RenderProperties = b.RenderProperties;
free(b);
}

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby folkhero » Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 am UTC

Le1bn1z wrote:I mean, normally I don't go for the whole hyperbolic "They're killing our freedom" stuff, but in this case, its true.

I was going to write something about 'letting the terrorists win' but I couldn't quite bring myself to that rhetoric, even though in this case it seems plenty justified.

I'm looking for contact information for Comedy Central, if anyone knows where an angry email should go, please let me know.
I also plan on sending some strongly worded e-mails to some of the network's sponsors.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

Nordic Einar
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:21 am UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Nordic Einar » Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:32 am UTC

Personally, I find it abso-fucking-lutely hilarious that after airing an episode about avoiding censorship of the Prophet Muhammad on Family Guy, South Park later goes on to get themselves censored by their own network for showing the Prophet Muhammad. It's twice as hilarious because of how much I hate that show.

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby folkhero » Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:46 am UTC

Maybe you should do a little more research on the South Park episode "Cartoon Wars".

edit: so I found http://www.comedycentral.com/help/questionsCC.jhtml
To which I sent the following letter:
Spoiler:
Watching the South Park episodes "201," I was questioned whether or not the blatant censorship was a clever meta-joke on the part of the show's creators, or actual censorship from the network. Tonight I discovered that the Network censored the episode based on threats from extremists. I find this to be an appalling shirking of your responsibilities as citizens of a free society and your lack of comment on the issue strikes me as cowardly and pathetic. If you had chosen to censor the episode, based on a sense of cultural or religious sensitivity, then I would find the censorship offensive, but understandable. Taking advantage of the freedom that was given to you paid for with the blood of others, without having the courage to allow the artists working for you to exercise said freedom is not something I can any longer support with my viewership.

It is with some sadness that I say that I will no longer watch your network. I am a fan of Colbert and the Daily Show and it will be with considerable sadness that I will miss the new Futurama episodes, but I can't, in clear conscience support your network unless you undergo some sort of philosophical change regarding censorship and submitting to the most wretched part of society.

Your sponsors will also be getting similar e-mails explaining why I will no longer be purchasing their products.
I encourage all of you to send them similar letters.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

Flayer
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:02 am UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Flayer » Fri Apr 23, 2010 12:31 pm UTC

What if they put up a disclaimer in front, saying "This episode was created by Trey Parker and Matt Stone", so that the people working at comedy central will be protected from a possible terrorist attack (as that is the reason for the censor, according to the daily show).

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Red Hal » Fri Apr 23, 2010 12:44 pm UTC

Is it your belief that we should show the Prophet Muhammad purely to showcase our right to free speech, or just to piss off the Muslim population? What about, oh I don't know, attacking the religion a different way? You see, while I find the violent antics and intimidatory tactics of radical Islamists to be as abhorrent as those of fundamentalists of other religions (can I include Dawkins trying to get the Pope arrested in there?), I don't see either why we have to go out of our way to offend.

I understand that South Park sets itself up as considering everyone an equal-opportunity target, but surely you can criticise a religion without having to resort to outright blasphemy (in the eyes of that religion). Let's simplify that; just because you can - and I passionately believe in free speech - doesn't mean you should.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

User avatar
SWGlassPit
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: South Park Censored

Postby SWGlassPit » Fri Apr 23, 2010 12:49 pm UTC

Red Hal wrote:Is it your belief that we should show the Prophet Muhammad purely to showcase our right to free speech, or just to piss off the Muslim population? What about, oh I don't know, attacking the religion a different way? You see, while I find the violent antics and intimidatory tactics of radical Islamists to be as abhorrent as those of fundamentalists of other religions (can I include Dawkins trying to get the Pope arrested in there?), I don't see either why we have to go out of our way to offend.

I understand that South Park sets itself up as considering everyone an equal-opportunity target, but surely you can criticise a religion without having to resort to outright blasphemy (in the eyes of that religion). Let's simplify that; just because you can - and I passionately believe in free speech - doesn't mean you should.


That same episode showed Buddha doing lines of coke and Jesus watching internet porn. Why is Muhammad special?
Up in space is a laboratory the size of a football field zipping along at 7 km/s. It's my job to keep it safe.
Image
Erdös number: 5

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: South Park Censored

Postby aleflamedyud » Fri Apr 23, 2010 12:55 pm UTC

Red Hal wrote:Is it your belief that we should show the Prophet Muhammad purely to showcase our right to free speech, or just to piss off the Muslim population? What about, oh I don't know, attacking the religion a different way? You see, while I find the violent antics and intimidatory tactics of radical Islamists to be as abhorrent as those of fundamentalists of other religions (can I include Dawkins trying to get the Pope arrested in there?), I don't see either why we have to go out of our way to offend.

I understand that South Park sets itself up as considering everyone an equal-opportunity target, but surely you can criticise a religion without having to resort to outright blasphemy (in the eyes of that religion). Let's simplify that; just because you can - and I passionately believe in free speech - doesn't mean you should.

Did you watch '200' and '201'? The main characters of South Park actually try to be as respectful as they can of Muhammad out of a stated fear of terrorist reprisal. Muhammad doesn't even speak in the show, let alone say or do anything blasphemous.

They ought to show him for the sake of the simple fact that, to the vast majority of the world's Muslims, doing so is not blasphemy. Most of the world's Muslims do not consider the obligations and commandments of Islam incumbent on a couple of atheist Americans who were born Christian and Jewish. Only the Islamists, the terrorists with dreams of Muslim world domination, actually think that their broadcasting standards should be enforced on South Park.

The interwebs' reaction to these events, however, is a whole separate story. The orgy of deliberately offensive pictures and writings posted about Muhammad as a (totally masturbatory, considering 4chan and Reddit are not under terrorist threat) statement about "free speech" is just totally wrong, and those people need to consider that just because they have the right to make such portrayals doesn't mean it is right.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 808
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby MartianInvader » Fri Apr 23, 2010 1:07 pm UTC

Didn't this exact same thing already happen in the South Park episode "Cartoon Wars"? Except in that episode, Comedy Central censored a scene in which Mohammad gives a salmon helmet to Peter Griffin (it makes sense in context... sort of).

I kind of felt like I understood where Comedy central might be coming from with that. After all, mocking a religion like Christianity, or even Buddhism, where Europe/US has a great standard of living and India is starting to pick up its economy, has a different feel to it. When many Muslims are lucky to not have their houses blown up or bulldozed, hitting them with this kind of mockery is a little more... vicious.

I mean, from a Middle-Easterner's point of view, it's basically saying, "We (Americans) invaded your country, destabilized it, filled it with violence, destroyed many peoples lives and livelihoods, so that we could stop some weapons of mass destruction and a terrorist network that weren't there. Now that we've done that, we're going to blaspheme against your religion and relentlessly mock you." That's kind of low, and I could understand why Comedy Central might not want to use their network for it.

But if it's really just because they're afraid of threats, then yeah that's pretty lame.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: South Park Censored

Postby aleflamedyud » Fri Apr 23, 2010 1:11 pm UTC

Most Muslims don't live in Iraq or Afghanistan, dude.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Red Hal » Fri Apr 23, 2010 1:18 pm UTC

SWGlassPit wrote:That same episode showed Buddha doing lines of coke and Jesus watching internet porn. Why is Muhammad special?
He isn't, my feelings are the same for both of those figures too. However, neither Buddhism nor Christianity have specific prohibitions on the portrayal of images of those entities unlike Islam.
aleflamedyud wrote:They ought to show him for the sake of the simple fact that, to the vast majority of the world's Muslims, doing so is not blasphemy.

---snip---

The interwebs' reaction to these events, however, is a whole separate story. The orgy of deliberately offensive pictures and writings posted about Muhammad as a (totally masturbatory, considering 4chan and Reddit are not under terrorist threat) statement about "free speech" is just totally wrong, and those people need to consider that just because they have the right to make such portrayals doesn't mean it is right.
Totally agree with the bit below the snip. Above it, while I would agree with "many", "vast majority" is pushing it too far. Sunni muslims are the ones who generally are against depictions of Muhammad, and they comprise 70% of the muslim population.

In any case, I'm objecting not because of the religion but because a little bit of consideration goes a long way.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

Chen
Posts: 5576
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Chen » Fri Apr 23, 2010 1:34 pm UTC

Red Hal wrote:Is it your belief that we should show the Prophet Muhammad purely to showcase our right to free speech, or just to piss off the Muslim population? What about, oh I don't know, attacking the religion a different way? You see, while I find the violent antics and intimidatory tactics of radical Islamists to be as abhorrent as those of fundamentalists of other religions (can I include Dawkins trying to get the Pope arrested in there?), I don't see either why we have to go out of our way to offend.

I understand that South Park sets itself up as considering everyone an equal-opportunity target, but surely you can criticise a religion without having to resort to outright blasphemy (in the eyes of that religion). Let's simplify that; just because you can - and I passionately believe in free speech - doesn't mean you should.


South Park does plenty which could be considered Blasphemy to other religions too. I fail to see why anyone who is NOT Muslim would be expected to abide by Islam's restrictions or rules. I mean we don't see a bunch of people getting upset that we're not all eating halal food. Why is this rule different?
Last edited by Chen on Fri Apr 23, 2010 1:52 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Red Hal » Fri Apr 23, 2010 1:44 pm UTC

It's different because not eating halal food is not insulting the prophet.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

Flayer
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:02 am UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Flayer » Fri Apr 23, 2010 1:57 pm UTC

I am pretty sure there is something in the bible about not using the lords name in vain ... i seem to recall many a 'jesus fucking christ' in that episode (although "fucking" is also censored... =/ )

User avatar
skeptical scientist
closed-minded spiritualist
Posts: 6142
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
Location: San Francisco

Re: South Park Censored

Postby skeptical scientist » Fri Apr 23, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Depicting the prophet and insulting him are two very different things. Now, without seeing the South Park episode, I wouldn't be surprised if many Muslims found it insulting. But according to Wikipedia, there have also been controversies surrounding depictions which portrayed Muhammad in a neutral or even positive light, simply because they were depictions of Muhammad:
Depictions of Muhammad wrote:Muhammad figures frequently in depictions of influential people in world history. Such depictions tend to be favourable or neutral in intent; one example can be found at the United States Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C.. A frieze including major historical lawgivers places Muhammad alongside Hammurabi, Moses, Confucius, and others. Because of a 1997 controversy surrounding the frieze, tourist materials have been edited so they call the depiction "a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor to honor Muhammad" that "bears no resemblance to Muhammad." In 1955, a statue of Muhammad was removed from a courthouse in New York City after the ambassadors of Indonesia, Pakistan, and Egypt requested its removal.

This makes no sense to me: why do Muslims expect non-Muslims to follow Islamic law in this regard? Why is this any different from eating pork?
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.

"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Red Hal » Fri Apr 23, 2010 1:59 pm UTC

The Bible doesn't prescribe death for breaking that rule though.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

Chen
Posts: 5576
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Chen » Fri Apr 23, 2010 2:05 pm UTC

Insulting the prophet could be considered Blasphemy fine. But I imagine insulting Jesus or Vishnu or whoever would also be considered Blasphemy. I'm looking for what the difference is. Or does your statement extend that South Park (or whoever) shouldn't be insulting any of the other religious figures either. I mean thats consistent at least.

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Red Hal » Fri Apr 23, 2010 2:18 pm UTC

Yes, my statement extends to other religions. Criticise the religions by all means, but there are ways of doing it that don't involve taking the principal entities and portraying them in degrading or other behaviour. That's just childish. Oh, wait, we were talking about South Park, weren't we ...
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Gelsamel » Fri Apr 23, 2010 2:22 pm UTC

I have not seen 201, but in 200 Muhammad had like 2 lines which were like "Yes" and "Okay" (or something along those lines) and you don't even actually see him. For all you know it's just some person called Muhammad inside a van, and then afterwards inside a costume so no one can see him (because South Park feared that they'd be bombed by terrorists).

When I first saw the news about it I thought it was a meta-joke, like "Haha, we're censoring it to show how rediculous that is" to learn it's actually true was a "WTF!?" moment.../
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Vaniver » Fri Apr 23, 2010 2:24 pm UTC

Red Hal wrote:Is it your belief that we should show the Prophet Muhammad purely to showcase our right to free speech, or just to piss off the Muslim population? What about, oh I don't know, attacking the religion a different way? You see, while I find the violent antics and intimidatory tactics of radical Islamists to be as abhorrent as those of fundamentalists of other religions (can I include Dawkins trying to get the Pope arrested in there?), I don't see either why we have to go out of our way to offend.

I understand that South Park sets itself up as considering everyone an equal-opportunity target, but surely you can criticise a religion without having to resort to outright blasphemy (in the eyes of that religion). Let's simplify that; just because you can - and I passionately believe in free speech - doesn't mean you should.
One of the reasons to do this is that it shows that the people in question are violent and backwards. When they consider offensive speech to be fighting words, it's not you that has the problem: it's them. For most people, that's enough reason to not do it- but these are humorists and satirists we're talking about. Offending is what they do.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Le1bn1z
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Le1bn1z » Fri Apr 23, 2010 2:25 pm UTC

Chen wrote:Insulting the prophet could be considered Blasphemy fine. But I imagine insulting Jesus or Vishnu or whoever would also be considered Blasphemy. I'm looking for what the difference is. Or does your statement extend that South Park (or whoever) shouldn't be insulting any of the other religious figures either. I mean thats consistent at least.


Because, in Europe and North America, at least, Muslims are the last group with large numbers of people unable to deal with insults or "blasphemy" like responsible adults. There is a large enough segment of the Muslim population who are still culturally and morally like a gaggle of petulant children that they can get real attention for their crying, kicking and screaming.

Frankly, these man-children deserve a good scolding until they learn their lesson. Neither they nor their fragile emotional state are worthy of special attention. If they can't bear the notion of living like grownups in a grownup country, they ought to return to the silly lands from which they came, and leave the West to the Muslim citizens who actually want to live here, and whose names they are constantly dragging through the mud with their pathetic whining and temper-tantrums.
Krong writes: Code: Select all
transubstantiate(Bread b) {
Person p = getJesusPersonInstance();
p.RenderProperties = b.RenderProperties;
free(b);
}

EmptySet
Posts: 1196
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 6:33 am UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby EmptySet » Fri Apr 23, 2010 2:41 pm UTC

Red Hal wrote:Is it your belief that we should show the Prophet Muhammad purely to showcase our right to free speech, or just to piss off the Muslim population? What about, oh I don't know, attacking the religion a different way? You see, while I find the violent antics and intimidatory tactics of radical Islamists to be as abhorrent as those of fundamentalists of other religions (can I include Dawkins trying to get the Pope arrested in there?), I don't see either why we have to go out of our way to offend.

I understand that South Park sets itself up as considering everyone an equal-opportunity target, but surely you can criticise a religion without having to resort to outright blasphemy (in the eyes of that religion).


Oh my God, it's so annoying, isn't it? I mean, Jesus Christ people. It's not that damn difficult. Hell, I barely even have to think about it.

Seriously, though. It's not about whether you believe X is necessarily right or a good thing to say. It's about censorship, and whether we should refuse to show X because some nutjob is threatening to set the building on fire if we do show it. I mean, take a look at the list of the top 100 books challenged this decade, according the American Library association. Number one? That pinnacle of depravity, Harry Potter, the reason given being "occult/Satanism". Even better, let's look at the top 10 for 2005. What book is the most horrifying and unsuitable for our children, you ask? What tome of depravity is an affront to God's green Earth? A sex education book entitled "It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex, and Sexual Health", with one of the reasons given being "religious viewpoint". Incidentally, number 10 is another sex ed book ("It’s So Amazing! A Book about Eggs, Sperm, Birth, Babies, and Families"). See also this list of frequently challenged classics.

Anyway, the point is, if we banned everything somebody claimed was "blasphemous" or "against God" you can wave goodbye to many classic works of literature, as well as some of the most popular books of modern times, and many other useful and informative works. Yes, some people are occasionally going to find some things offensive. That doesn't mean that these things should not be accessible to anybody else. As the saying goes, "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it". Furthermore, even a work which is offensive may have value. For example, I personally do not agree with the views espoused in Mein Kampf, and in fact think they're extremely horrible and offensive. However, it clearly has value as a historical document; and I would not support banning it because it is "offensive", even though I find the views expressed utterly disgusting. People need to be able to acquire information so they can make informed judgments. Perhaps in some cases, that judgment will be "The person who wrote this is a bigoted moron and I want nothing to do with them". At least you'll know not to do business with that guy in the future, or understand why everyone was so upset when Prince Harry turned up at a party wearing a Nazi uniform.

Red Hal wrote:The Bible doesn't prescribe death for breaking that rule though.


Actually, there is a passage in Leviticus saying that he who blasphemes will surely be put to death. I believe that under traditional Jewish law in Jesus' time, stoning to death was the standard punishment. Also, many Christians have been extremely critical of blasphemy; Thomas Aquinas, for instance, claimed that it was a greater sin than murder.

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby nowfocus » Fri Apr 23, 2010 4:59 pm UTC

MartianInvader wrote:I kind of felt like I understood where Comedy central might be coming from with that. After all, mocking a religion like Christianity, or even Buddhism, where Europe/US has a great standard of living and India is starting to pick up its economy, has a different feel to it.


Ah yes, as primarily Buddhist countries such as Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Burma, and North Korea all enjoy high standards of living free from the consequences of US foriegn policy.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
big boss
Posts: 589
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:59 am UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby big boss » Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:53 pm UTC

Red Hal wrote:I understand that South Park sets itself up as considering everyone an equal-opportunity target, but surely you can criticise a religion without having to resort to outright blasphemy (in the eyes of that religion). Let's simplify that; just because you can - and I passionately believe in free speech - doesn't mean you should.


I'm pretty sure many Christian's would find South Park's episodes that contain Jesus highly offensive (one that comes to mind is the Da Vinci Code Easter Special with Jesus throwing ninja stars), but that was never censored. Episode 201 was only censored because of a threat, and due to that threat the right to free speech was impeded.
"Starbuck, what do you hear?"
"Nothing but the Rain."

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7590
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Zamfir » Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:07 pm UTC

Do we have reason to assume this is not a publicity stunt from South Park?
1. Make something guaranteed to pull mad hate mail
2. Put in "censored" bars and claim you do so because of the hatemail
3. Publicity
4. Profit

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby folkhero » Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:11 pm UTC

I'd also like to point out that while "200" censored the image of Muhammad, keeping in line with the Comedy Central practice started in the episode "Cartoon Wars," "201" censored any mention of Muhammad's name, and the entire final "I've learned something today" speech which didn't even mention Muhammad. (or so says the creators) It's wasn't just a matter of Comedy Central not wanting to show blasphemy, they were buckling to vague threats made by knuckle dragging thugs.

Several people here think the episode was insulting to Muhammad, and it blatantly wasn't. Muhammad was portrayed as a fairly normal/ nice guy that the boys were trying to protect. The criticism was all directed at those who make threats to stifle free speech, and those that give into the threats.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Aetius » Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:12 pm UTC

It's not like South Park came out of nowhere to criticize Islam for no good reason (and even if they had, that would have been par for the course for them), the original Cartoon Wars episode (of which this celebratory 200th episode was a throwback to, amongst other jokes/messages over the series) was a direct response to reaction to the Danish cartoons. The point wasn't "let's attack Muslims just for the hell of it" it was "how far is the West going to let fear of violence intimidate us into according Islam a higher degree of respect than any other religion?" To hammer this point home they depicted Mohammed in almost a zero context, simply presenting him as existing, while simultaneously blaspheming and insulting Jesus Christ in ways that could give an old Baptist a heart attack. When Comedy Central censored the portrayal of Mohammed, but let the literal defecation of Jesus go, the hypocrisy and double standard were on full display. This 200th episode was a continuation of that point [and actually took it further by questioning whether it was ok to depict Mohammed as a stick figure (apparently not), wearing a bear costume (ok for now), saying his name (not anymore) or having an ending monologue making a point about it (nope)]

Zamfir wrote:Do we have reason to assume this is not a publicity stunt from South Park?


Everything I've read has said that Trey and Matt delivered the episode uncensored and that the network censored it and that both the creators and the network confirm this (although the network has refused to comment further).

User avatar
Gammashield
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:41 pm UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Gammashield » Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:28 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:Do we have reason to assume this is not a publicity stunt from South Park?
1. Make something guaranteed to pull mad hate mail
2. Put in "censored" bars and claim you do so because of the hatemail
3. Publicity
4. Profit


Well, it's undeniable that *some* of the censorship was just part of the episode (hell, the 'censored' bar played a major role in the plot!). And I've got suspicions that the bleeping of the entire final speech was an original part of the episode: if *that* was a censor at work, then they should hire the dude on full-time to write for the show. Leaving the 'He's right!" and "yeah!" in while bleeping *everything* else was actually hilarious.

The bleeping of Mohammed's name when used though... *that* I suspect really was outside interference. For one thing, it rendered the episode almost incomprehensible if you hadn't seen the first part. That's very unusual for South Park.

User avatar
Sockmonkey
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:30 pm UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Sockmonkey » Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:48 pm UTC

I suppose an uncensored version online would be too much to ask for huh?

User avatar
SWGlassPit
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: South Park Censored

Postby SWGlassPit » Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:59 pm UTC

Part of me wonders if this whole thing is just a troll of massive proportions...
Up in space is a laboratory the size of a football field zipping along at 7 km/s. It's my job to keep it safe.
Image
Erdös number: 5

Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Aetius » Fri Apr 23, 2010 7:04 pm UTC

SWGlassPit wrote:Part of me wonders if this whole thing is just a troll of massive proportions...


That would cost Matt and Trey nearly all of their credibility for very little gain. It doesn't seem in their character at all.

User avatar
SWGlassPit
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: South Park Censored

Postby SWGlassPit » Fri Apr 23, 2010 7:53 pm UTC

It's not like they haven't pranked their viewers before (Season 2, episode 1).
Up in space is a laboratory the size of a football field zipping along at 7 km/s. It's my job to keep it safe.
Image
Erdös number: 5

Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Aetius » Fri Apr 23, 2010 7:57 pm UTC

SWGlassPit wrote:It's not like they haven't pranked their viewers before (Season 2, episode 1).


There's a difference between pranking your viewers on a terrance and philip type deal and falsifying a principled stand.

User avatar
cjmcjmcjmcjm
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:15 am UTC
Location: Anywhere the internet is strong

Re: South Park Censored

Postby cjmcjmcjmcjm » Fri Apr 23, 2010 8:18 pm UTC

folkhero wrote:Maybe you should do a little more research on the South Park episode "Cartoon Wars".

edit: so I found http://www.comedycentral.com/help/questionsCC.jhtml
To which I sent the following letter:
Spoiler:
Watching the South Park episodes "201," I was questioned whether or not the blatant censorship was a clever meta-joke on the part of the show's creators, or actual censorship from the network. Tonight I discovered that the Network censored the episode based on threats from extremists. I find this to be an appalling shirking of your responsibilities as citizens of a free society and your lack of comment on the issue strikes me as cowardly and pathetic. If you had chosen to censor the episode, based on a sense of cultural or religious sensitivity, then I would find the censorship offensive, but understandable. Taking advantage of the freedom that was given to you paid for with the blood of others, without having the courage to allow the artists working for you to exercise said freedom is not something I can any longer support with my viewership.

It is with some sadness that I say that I will no longer watch your network. I am a fan of Colbert and the Daily Show and it will be with considerable sadness that I will miss the new Futurama episodes, but I can't, in clear conscience support your network unless you undergo some sort of philosophical change regarding censorship and submitting to the most wretched part of society.

Your sponsors will also be getting similar e-mails explaining why I will no longer be purchasing their products.
I encourage all of you to send them similar letters.

I thought the portrayal of Mohammed as a censor bar was a joke, as was the bleeped out ending lines of 201, but why did they suddenly bleep out anytime someone said his name? I found that very odd and it would have made absolutely no sense if you didn't see 200 first.
Also, as others have said, why are the Muslims intact from having a joke at their religion's expense? It's not as if they didn't show Buddha doing lines of cocaine and Jesus looking at porn. If people get offended by an equal-opportunity offensive show, fuck 'em. Bluffs are meant to be called.
Spoiler:
For that matter, they didn't have enough fun poked at Scientology for an episode featuring Tom Cruise
frezik wrote:Anti-photons move at the speed of dark

DemonDeluxe wrote:Paying to have laws written that allow you to do what you want, is a lot cheaper than paying off the judge every time you want to get away with something shady.

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby folkhero » Fri Apr 23, 2010 8:51 pm UTC

The censored bar was partially a joke, and the version that Parker and Stone sent to Comedy Central must have contained the censor bar since the bar was used to demonstrate a plot point. (of course they already knew CC wouldn't show Muhammad because of the big fight over "Cartoon Wars") The beeping of Muhammad's name is almost certainly from the network, because it was unbleeped in "200" and their was no reason plot-wise for that to change. The bleeping of the entire final-speech-thing was also from the network, unless Parker and Stone blatantly lied in the statement they released, which I rather doubt.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Cleverbeans » Fri Apr 23, 2010 10:46 pm UTC

So it seems the popular stance is that freedom of speech is more important than freedom of religion? Personally I can't find anything odd about Fox getting bomb threats, particularly since they're the primary media outlet for anti-Islamic activities in the US. In fact, I'm having a hard time believing this isn't a propaganda ploy from the network to support their agenda in the middle east.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

Le1bn1z
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Le1bn1z » Fri Apr 23, 2010 10:55 pm UTC

Cleverbeans wrote:So it seems the popular stance is that freedom of speech is more important than freedom of religion? Personally I can't find anything odd about Fox getting bomb threats, particularly since they're the primary media outlet for anti-Islamic activities in the US. In fact, I'm having a hard time believing this isn't a propaganda ploy from the network to support their agenda in the middle east.


The only freedom of religion issue here is freedom of dissent. Nobody is interfering with the religious activities or beliefs of Muslims, other than to point out they are absurd, which is no more than is said about other religions, at least one truly lame superhero and Oprah.

The most vulnerable right in terms of religious freedom is always the right to dissent, the right to directly, overtly and bluntly challenge and ridicule a religious stance. Without that freedom, there is a true stifling of faith, because so much of the quest to spiritual truth is the confrontation of our self-deceptions.

It is the pseudo-terrorists, not Comedy Central, who are the true enemies of freedom of religion.

OK, they hate freedom of speech too. And ultimately wouldn't be so keen on elections. Or assemblies. But that's another story called "why Islamic civilization is languishing abysmally," and is a longer story than we have time to tell.
Krong writes: Code: Select all
transubstantiate(Bread b) {
Person p = getJesusPersonInstance();
p.RenderProperties = b.RenderProperties;
free(b);
}

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: South Park Censored

Postby TheAmazingRando » Fri Apr 23, 2010 10:56 pm UTC

Cleverbeans wrote:So it seems the popular stance is that freedom of speech is more important than freedom of religion?
Explain how blasphemy stifles freedom of religion.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Link, PAstrychef and 24 guests