Nothing is Sacred!

[Zarathustra]

I seldom start threads on the Lounge, but I'm surprised this topic hasn't been mentioned over the past week. It originally had me laughing, but now I'm a bit irked...

Last week, Comedy Central aired the 200th episode of South Park, aptly named "200". It dealt with the censorship of the Prophet Muhammad, and took plenty of jabs at the idea of not being able to depict him on the show. Eventually it gets to the point where they have someone dressed up in a bear mascot costume claiming that is Muhammad (in disguise, because to actually show him would be WAY out of line). It was one of their bait episodes where the absurdity sparked in the real world is half the fun (kind of like the outrage on the WoW forums after it was featured). I've always gotten a kick out of the social response to those.

It took no time at all for the New York based "Revolution Muslim" to denounce them, using language that didn't exactly make a death threat... but got close enough. Kind of like how they never really showed Muhammad, but danced around the idea of it.

I went to my DVD shelf and pulled the 2001 episode "Super Best Friends" just to see if I remembered correctly. Apparently, back in 2001, it was allright to show Muhammad. By the way, he has mastery over the element of fire, in case you were wondering.

Fast forward to this Wednesday (4/22/10), when "201" plays. Hey, wait... that's not the version they submitted to Comedy Central...

Comedy Central took it upon themselves to censor out Muhammad, and mention of the name Muhammad, and THREE SPEECHES given at the end. The traditional "I've learned something" speech was bleeped in its entirety and never had a single mention of Muhammad or Islam. Apparently even Santa Claus had some nasty things to say and Comedy Central felt it would be best to bleep them.

When I first watched the episode, I figured it was all a joke. Then I saw the official statement from Trey Parker and Matt Stone:

In the 14 years we’ve been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn’t stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn’t some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps. In fact, Kyle’s customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn’t mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We’ll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we’ll see what happens to it.

Now, I'm not learned enough in the realm of Islam to know the passages in the Quran that outline what a grievous act it is to depict Muhammad in any way. I also don't understand how this was allright in 2001, but is suddenly worth death threats in 2010.

If someone cares to enlighten an old Lurker or throw his/her two chipped gems into the fray, please do. In the meantime, those who are not whipped into a frothing frenzy by depictions of Muhammad should look at this picture. Is that so bad?

[DeeBye]

Religion makes crazy people do crazy things.

[eppie]

I seldom start threads on the Lounge, but I'm surprised this topic hasn't been mentioned over the past week. It originally had me laughing, but now I'm a bit irked...

This has nothing to do with criticism of Islam. It has to do with comedy central being afraid to loose advertisement income.
The same as those morons of MTV do when beeping 'bad' words from the video-clips they show.


Again, if we wouldn't be so depended on oil from Islamic countries we probably wouldn't care so much about these things. This is all own interest.

(and in case you don't know, I find religion stupid so I am in no way trying to defend the ISlam)

[kandrathe]

Religion makes crazy people do crazy things.

Like Ted Kazinski or Tim McVeigh? Crazy people do crazy things and their motivation has little to do with reason or religion. I believe that 99.99% of people in this world of all religious or non-religious beliefs do NOT do violent things (including the crazy ones). We focus on the .01% of crazy crap, then spend billions and write thousands of laws trying to control the irrational outliers.

For example, it irks me that I can't buy a chemistry kit for my sons with something more volatile in it than food coloring.

[kandrathe]

If someone cares to enlighten an old Lurker or throw his/her two chipped gems into the fray, please do.

I'm not a SP fan, but I am a fan of Trey Parker and Matt Stone. This is another example of political correctness police stamping out free expression. It's as offensive as painting fig leafs onto nude artwork. Islam is going to need to decide to either launch full out war on non-Islamic world for being free (including depictions of Mohammad), or get over it, settle for being upset and make a public statement denouncing the act (as is done by other groups when they get spat upon). At this point in Christianity, we get upset with Christians (with slightly different views on obscure interpretations).

[Ashock]

Islam is going to need to decide to either launch full out war on non-Islamic world for being free (including depictions of Mohammad)

Going to need to decide? It's done.

[Rhydderch Hael]

The folks making the threats are extremists. Extremists would want you dead no matter how trivial the deviation from their ideals you choose to take.

If you're ticking off those sort of folks, then it is because you're not submitting to their maddeningly narrow views on how the world should be. That can't be altogether a bad thing, you know.

[eppie]

I'm not a SP fan, but I am a fan of Trey Parker and Matt Stone. This is another example of political correctness police stamping out free expression. It's as offensive as painting fig leafs onto nude artwork. Islam is going to need to decide to either launch full out war on non-Islamic world for being free (including depictions of Mohammad), or get over it, settle for being upset and make a public statement denouncing the act (as is done by other groups when they get spat upon). At this point in Christianity, we get upset with Christians (with slightly different views on obscure interpretations).

I can't connect this post with your previous one about the 99.9% non-violent people.

What does 'Islam' need to decide? 99.9% of Islamic people decided not to use violence, exactly according to your statement in your previous post.

We need to do something. We need just to televise what we want.

But this has nothing to do with religion....it has to do with the fact that comedy central is scared of losing advertisement income. For the same reason MTV (and other stations) beep away words that might be offensive to somebody......and that is a lot of words. I remember a video from DMX where the word 'drugs' was beeped.

TV stations are a big bunch of spineless sissy's that only think about money.

[--Pete]

Hi,

But this has nothing to do with religion....it has to do with the fact that comedy central is scared of losing advertisement income.

You're only looking at one level. Follow the idea all the way back: Comedy Central is afraid of losing advertising income because they are afraid that people will be offended and not tune into their network. Why would those people be offended? Because of religion. Besides, it could be that the executives of the network decided to censor the material not out of greed but out of fear. After all, the extremists have threatened authors with death for less.

TV stations are a big bunch of spineless sissy's that only think about money.

TV stations are businesses that offer entertainment for money. Except for their news broadcasts, they should not be held to a journalistic standard any more than, say, Reader's Digest magazine. If you want political commentary, pick up a newspaper and turn to the Op-Ed pages.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I can't connect this post with your previous one about the 99.9% non-violent people.

It has to do with the majority of non-violent Muslims from the so-called religion of peace coming forward and telling the minority to crawl back under their 6th century rock, or adapt their philosophy to the 21st century. That goes for our respective nations Christians as well, in the USA its people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell. Freedom of religion is one thing, but shoving it down peoples throats through the force of law is wrong. It is just as wrong for the Army to be intolerant of Franklin Graham speaking (due to an opinion expressed 9 years ago in the aftermath of 911), as it is for Comedy Central to censor South Park. Both are limiting the exchange of ideas due to intolerance for opinions that are controversial. I can't count the number of South Park episodes that have been extremely offensive of Judaism, or Christianity. I don't laugh at it, but I think its great that they have the freedom to defecate intellectually on what I consider sacred. It has become a weapon of the thought police on both sides of the political spectrum, and both are wrong (e.g. Ann Coulter inability to speak at University of Ottawa, or Bill Ayers being uninvited to speak at University of Wyoming.) To me, it is the intellectual equivalent of thugs beating up peaceful protesters.

I believe either the majority of Muslims are also afraid of the violent and vocal minority, or their silence is tacit approval of their more violent fundamentalists causing havoc in Europe and the USA. You know, the tit for tat argument of claiming nations deserve to have random innocent people murdered because of Israel, or supporting the USA in Iraq, or Afghanistan.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . Ann Coulter inability to speak at University of Ottawa . . .

I think her inability to speak is a matter of her stupidity, not of censorship.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I think her inability to speak is a matter of her stupidity, not of censorship. --Pete

Being a shrill harpy aside... I don't want to see anyone shouted down or in essence denied their rights of free speech, due to prejudice and intolerance.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I don't want to see anyone shouted down or in essence denied their rights of free speech, due to prejudice and intolerance.

OK, I was just kidding, but if you want serious, here goes.

First, I see no indication that her right to free speech is being denied. The fact that we all know who she is indicates that her speech has been heard. She is a published author. I suspect she's been on any number of editorial pages. She's been on TV. Looks like she's pretty well been allowed her right.

Second, the right to free speech does not confer a soap box -- you have to bring your own. If the people at the University of Ottawa are smart enough to not want an intolerant, ignorant, shrill, moron to address them, then the said moron has no right to be there. No more than cheaters and spammers have a right to be here. The ownership of the venue trumps free speech -- and that is as it should be.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Second, the right to free speech does not confer a soap box -- you have to bring your own. If the people at the University of Ottawa are smart enough to not want an intolerant, ignorant, shrill, moron to address them, then the said moron has no right to be there. No more than cheaters and spammers have a right to be here. The ownership of the venue trumps free speech -- and that is as it should be.

I agree with the previous part. What I understand from the Ottowa event was that she was invited to speak by people who did want to hear what she had to say. The campus police ended up canceling the event after the people protesting against her, threatened violence.

It does not seem to be an exercise in free speech, but rather that of mob rule.

[eppie]

Hi,

But this has nothing to do with religion....it has to do with the fact that comedy central is scared of losing advertisement income.

You're only looking at one level. Follow the idea all the way back: Comedy Central is afraid of losing advertising income because they are afraid that people will be offended and not tune into their network. Why would those people be offended? Because of religion. Besides, it could be that the executives of the network decided to censor the material not out of greed but out of fear. After all, the extremists have threatened authors with death for less.

Pete, of course! I agree 100%. I mean by now you must also know my thoughts about religion. But that people that start threatening people that make cartoons are morons, is something that needs no further discussion here, because they are. And if the are doing it because of religion, they are even bigger morons. Anyway, that is how it goes nowadays....everybody is threatening everybody. In Holland once in a while they are shutting down a building because they found a 'powder letter'.......just as if terrorists would go through all the trouble obtaining anthrax in powder-form and then use it to attack the car license office of a small dutch city.......I mean the person that shuts down the building should pay for all the economic losses......I mean a bit of reality would be handy.....especially in a world where everybody gets threatened all the time.

Back to southpark....we know there are these people that in this case might even bring their threats to reality. But is is our job to make sure those morons don't win. I mean going to war to liberate Afghanistan seems a bit hypocritical if you let extremists make the rules in your own country.
And especially southpark (look what we dare to say on TV) should not give in.....ergo they are a bunch of sissies and their show cannot be taken serious anymore.

And my previous comment stands of course.....I can imagine this happening...they also beep away swear words on TV because otherwise the Christians have their feelings hurt.
It is all money that makes the rules.

TV stations are a big bunch of spineless sissy's that only think about money.

TV stations are businesses that offer entertainment for money. Except for their news broadcasts, they should not be held to a journalistic standard any more than, say, Reader's Digest magazine. If you want political commentary, pick up a newspaper and turn to the Op-Ed pages.
--Pete

Indeed, but they don't earn my respect for that.

[eppie]

I can't connect this post with your previous one about the 99.9% non-violent people.

It has to do with the majority of non-violent Muslims from the so-called religion of peace coming forward and telling the minority to crawl back under their 6th century rock, or adapt their philosophy to the 21st century.

Maybe they do? And probably in the US and Europe most Muslims don't even personally know extremists Muslims. Maybe they agree very much with your nations Christians that for years are pressuring the government to do what they want, so they find they don't need to complain. They see Pat Robertson defending extremist Christians and think it is normal to behave like this?

I don't recall being able to make a lot of sense out of what the more extreme religious groups have to see ever so I don't know.

My point remains.....we should not give in to them. And then the biggest problem is that 'we' often do because it start hurting our wallets....making us hypocrites. If your government means business with its fight against terrorism they could spend a few dollars on protecting these makes of south park (if it is the fear that is the problem here). If you can't, or are not willing to protect your citizens in your own country you have no business in Afghanistan or Iraq.

[kandrathe]

My point remains.....we should not give in to them. And then the biggest problem is that 'we' often do because it start hurting our wallets....making us hypocrites. If your government means business with its fight against terrorism they could spend a few dollars on protecting these makes of south park (if it is the fear that is the problem here). If you can't, or are not willing to protect your citizens in your own country you have no business in Afghanistan or Iraq.

I don't think we should capitulate either.

But, I don't see anyone in the government standing up to Comedy Central, and supporting the freedom of expression of Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Quite the opposite, our current government support people paying their taxes and keeping their mouths shut. Read up on moves by our government to make Bolty liable for things we might say on his open forum. Perhaps if it actually gets to a court, then maybe judges would properly interpret the law. For an artist, suing their distributor is usually a career ending move. It is hard for many people, especially conservatives, to jump in and support the freedom of expression of people who's art is more on the profane side, whether that be Larry Flynt, Lenny Bruce, the Pythonians, Guy Earle, or Mark Steyn. Often, as with the prohibition of alcohol, morality gets in the way of personal freedom.

When it comes to the unrestricted freedom of expression, as opposed to the "freedom to not have someone hurt your feelings", I'm going to be on the side of the former. Much like that saying, "I may not agree with what you're saying, but I'll die to defend your right to say it." Unfortunately, you also get ignoramuses like Fred Phelps and his ilk.

But, for my part, I'm joining the Citizens Against Citizens Against Humor and their campaign "Celebrate everybody draw Muhammad day, May 20th".

[Jester]

What I understand from the Ottowa event was that she was invited to speak by people who did want to hear what she had to say. The campus police ended up canceling the event after the people protesting against her, threatened violence.

No. It was cancelled by its organizers, not by the police. If Ezra Levant and Ann Coulter can't take the heat, then they really should stay out of the kitchen.

If, on the other hand, they make their careers on inflaming as many people as possible, they can't plausibly make this a free speech issue when they themselves decide not to speak in front of people who are (surprise!) inflamed.

-Jester

[LavCat]

Anyway, that is how it goes nowadays....everybody is threatening everybody. In Holland once in a while they are shutting down a building because they found a 'powder letter'.......just as if terrorists would go through all the trouble obtaining anthrax in powder-form and then use it to attack the car license office of a small dutch city.......I mean the person that shuts down the building should pay for all the economic losses......I mean a bit of reality would be handy.....especially in a world where everybody gets threatened all the time.

Hmm. I work in the library of a small, quiet town (population about 750). No police force, not much crime except for speeding. It's been called "a one horse town," but there are more horses here than that. People are friendly. Just yesterday the letter carrier handed me the mail and his movies to return. One would not expect an anthrax attack here but there was. The little post office down the street from the library had to be closed and decontaminated.

Consider the repercussions if the decision were made not to close the building and people started coming down with anthrax.

[eppie]

Hmm. I work in the library of a small, quiet town (population about 750). No police force, not much crime except for speeding. It's been called "a one horse town," but there are more horses here than that. People are friendly. Just yesterday the letter carrier handed me the mail and his movies to return. One would not expect an anthrax attack here but there was. The little post office down the street from the library had to be closed and decontaminated.

Consider the repercussions if the decision were made not to close the building and people started coming down with anthrax.

The fact is that obtaining anthrax is so difficult that the only suspects can be mad scientists.
If shutting down a building for a day doesn't cost anything I would agree with you but if people start mailing powder letters around every day, the costs would be so huge that you could raise the wealth of several African countries to first world standards, and paying for the new Obama health care bill.


Apart from the fact that I don't believe your story (until I see it on CNN) there are so many easier and cheaper ways to harm people if you want to.
Plus, if you are a real terrorist and not a mad scientist you don't mail anthrax but you hide it in an office building giving the disease time to spread. E.g. putting some powder next to the powder milk jar.
So do you still agree we should close down a building every time we see some powder lying next to the powdered milk jar? Or for that matter if everything seems normal? A well trained terrorist should be able to hide something in your office without you seeing it.