I haven’t watched South Park in a long time, but I understand the latest controversy is that they blanked out an innocuous, brief portrayal of Mohammed, and everyone is saying the network caved under pressure. Michelle Malkin and her fellow right-wing nutjobs are embarrassingly hysterical over it.
People, it’s a cartoon that intentionally tries to drum up shrieks of outrage…it tries so hard that I’ve lost interest in it. I can’t possibly be the only one who thinks this whole affair was done on purpose by the creators, can I? If you think this episode is significant, you’ve been played.
PZ, the point that the creators of South Park were trying to make is that we are losing our heads when it comes to dealing with Islamic issues. In the same episode where the rather innocuous and decent portrayal of Mohammed was censored, the portrayal of Jesus doing outrageous things was left untouched. It’s this kind of bigotry that needs to be addressed.
I haven’t been watching South Park lately–have migrated to Adult Swim featuring Moral Oral, Robot Chicken, Family Guy, and Aqua Teen. Michelle Malkin’s discovered South Park? How two years ago!
The South Park folks had a win-win situation: if Comedy Central had let the Mohammed image pass, they’d be newsworty; and ditto if they censored it.
But it was still an awfully entertianing show, especially with the running joke about Family Guy’s jokes not being relevant to the plot, and Jesus pooping on George W. Bush.
South Park is grating frat humor. Not funny.
Malkin, on the other hand, is hilarious.
Yeh, it was just a cartoon. What are they gonna do when the stakes are higher?
PZ since you are not a “people of the book” death is your lot under Islam.
You are being played.
I know. What I’m saying, though, is that I don’t think it was censored: I think they intentionally put in a few blank seconds and said it was censored, in order to get a rise out of people. It worked.
I’ve seen the episodes (it was broken up into two parts). I saw the uncensored clip of Mohammed (which lasts all of about 3 seconds). It was also my thought that it was a stunt by Comedy Central or South Park. You can watch the episodes on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search=South+Park+Season+10+Episode+3&search_type=search_videos&search=Search
http://www.youtube.com/results?search=South+Park+Season+10+Episode+4&search_type=search_videos&search=Search
The South Park people are definitely trying to manufacture a controversy about Comedy Central censoring images of Muhammed. Of course, one reason why they’re doing so is because Comedy Central recently refused to rerun an earlier episode that made fun of Scientology. One of the actors on the show, Isaac Hayes, quit over the show’s “religious intolerance” (Hayes is a Scientologist).
I think Bob’s got it right.
I didn’t get the sense they cared terribly much about the Muhommed issue per se. It was just very topical and, of course, controversial and thus was a perfect way to rub Comedy Central’s face in the fact that they caved in to Tom freaking Cruise on the Scientology episode.
And plus, as said above, Jesus pooed on George Bush. Good stuff.
I think they intentionally put in a few blank seconds and said it was censored, in order to get a rise out of people. It worked.
A lot of people thought that, but when they contacted Comedy Central they were told otherwise. From MSNBC:
OK censored or not we do not live under Sh’ria law, so why are we having this discusion?
Does no one remember the South Park episode featuring David Blaine? Mohammed is one of the “Super Best Friends” in that episode, is shown all over the place, and even has cool fire powers. No one blinked then.
I still frequently watch and enjoy South Park, but I can’t deny that I’ve begun to find its constant courting of controversy for the sake of it (albeit with a pretense of libertarian horror) a bit tiresome. After the Scientology “did he or didn’t he?” thing, I’m just bored with the Jesus Christ pose — even when I agree with the underlying sentiment. (Though I do give it some credit for sometimes acknowledging its tendency to moralize, as per this most recent episode.)
But seriously, now that we’ve got Wonder Showzen, what the hell do we need with South Park?
Perhaps you’re using a strange new meaning of the word that I wasn’t previously aware of, but Comedy Central did indeed tell them that they could not show an image of Mohammed.
On the other hand, you *are* the man who posted the “Sex in an MRI” segment, so presumably you’d know something about manufacturing interest. Deep One see, Deep One do?
I gotta stand by ranson, here – this is nothing new for South Park and their religious slammings have gone on for ages. The fact that this episode got censored means they were right on the mark. That is to say, that people are losing their heads over trying to avoid conflict with Islam (and other religions, too).
You aren’t getting it.
Comedy Central is playing along. The station that shows South Park is not going to get all flustery at a brief shot of a cartoon Mohammed. Manufactured outrage sells.
Actually, going by comments on other forums, this has turned South Park fans off Comedy Central big time.
Not all outrage is profitable. Did Clinton benefit from Republican outrage about his extramarital affair?
The news sure as hell profitted from the extramarital affair outrage. Thats what this is all about. Whoever gets the viewership from it, ie Comedy Central, wins.
I don’t see how Comedy Central will be getting more viewerage out of this situation.
This makes at least a half-dozen blogs I’ve seen this particular brouhaha pop up on. Man…slow news day, huh.
I have yet to see a representation of Muhammed. When did Sh’ria become the law?
I can’t imagine why you think we’re getting played by Comedy Central here. I suppose it’s possible, but what reason is there to believe it’s actually true? Making fun of Mohammed is something that the South Park writers would actually do, so that part is believable. Previous writers who have depicted Mohammed in a negative light have had prices placed on their heads by Muslim extremists.* So, the fact that Comedy Central would censor the South Park writers is also very believable.
So I don’t know why you smell a conspiracy here. I think it’s obvious that there is a double standard being applied here, and someone needs to stand up to it.**
* Same goes for people who publish their work. IIRC, Muslim fundamentalists called for the death of not just Salman Rushdie, but anyone involved in the production and distribution of The Satanic Verses.
** Not Comedy Central, though. If I worked there, I wouldn’t want a price on MY head. If the right-wing nuts have a problem with this double standard, let them publish the material themselves.
I have yet to see a representation of Muhammed. When did Sh’ria become the law?
Last Thursday, didn’t you get the note? Darnit, we’ll have to start all over again.
Maybe Comedy Central is in collusion with the South Park guys to manufacture a controversy. These South Park controversies are becoming weekly affairs and obviously aren’t hurting their ratings. It makes me think back to the Carol Burnett show when they realized the audience loved it when the comedians would lose their composure during a skit and start laughing. After awhile, it became obvious that the “uncontrollable” bouts of laughter were being written into the script.
But I find in South Park the same fundamental dishonesty I find in most pop culture controversy-mongering: They insist their little animated show is not to be taken seriously, but they then insist any restrictions on what they do on their show is a serious violation of free speech. It’s the old grade-school game of doing something to deliberately upset somebody and then acting surprised when they get upset. It’s silly and childish. Which is fine, just don’t then turn around and tell me it’s important.
> Previous writers who have depicted Mohammed in a negative light have had prices placed on their heads by Muslim extremists.
You didn’t see the uncensored version of the South Park episode, did you. Mohammed shows up at the door, mutters “Jihad. Jihad”, hands Family Guy a football helmet with a fish on it, and Family Guy says, “All right! A salmon helmet.” Then closes the door. Mohammed appears for all of about 3 seconds. Even with the “jihad jihad” mutterings, he’s not really portrayed “in a negative light”.
Because it generates interest in the show. In order to watch the show, you must watch the network its showing on.
BC, that “uncensored” version has been flagged as possibly being fake.
You didn’t see the uncensored version of the South Park episode, did you. Mohammed shows up at the door, mutters “Jihad. Jihad”, hands Family Guy a football helmet with a fish on it, and Family Guy says, “All right! A salmon helmet.” Then closes the door. Mohammed appears for all of about 3 seconds. Even with the “jihad jihad” mutterings, he’s not really portrayed “in a negative light”.
Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if that wasn’t part of the joke. From what I understand, the seemingly unintelligible mutterings of Kenny are actual lines of dialogue. Generally, pretty filthy dialogue, too, which is a clever way of getting around the censors.
So who knows.
Actually, I saw that episode on YouTube.
“Comedy Central is playing along.”
P.Z., could you provide a cite for this?
Because you seem to be asserting it’s a fact.
I suspect you’re wrong, but I might be wrong in my suspecting that. But insisting on the above seems to be going rather out on a limb, if you don’t have any evidence.
“You didn’t see the uncensored version of the South Park episode, ”
It’s been generally established, apparently, that that “version” is a hoax.
Myself, I find South Park hilarious, but I only get to see the broadcast syndicated reruns these days, since I don’t have cable.
I’m pretty doubtful that Time Warner would engage in a hoax; it’s not corporate behavior; I’m not aware of any precedent for such a thing; I think they’d take a lot more sh*t when it was uncovered than it would be worth in ratings boost. Generally speaking, Time Warner doesn’t have much of a sense of humor.
But I could be wrong, to be sure.
I’m curious, though: since Comedy Central has also refused to broadcast the “Mary bleeding from her ass/Bloody Mary” episode, do you also regard that a phony story, PZ? If not, wouldn’t you say it indicates a trend?
Lastly, I’m not clear why one should assume Time Warner is engaging in a hoax in shying away from mocking Mohammed, when no major newspaper in the U.S. showed any of the “offensive” cartoons. This sort of corporate decision has been entirely consistent; yet you’re suggesting that we should think there exists this one inconsistency, which is inconsistent behavior on several axes, and for which there appears to be no proof whatever.
As I said, this seems to be somewhat going out on a limb, based on… instinct? A guess?
I’m pretty doubtful that Time Warner would engage in a hoax; it’s not corporate behavior; I’m not aware of any precedent for such a thing; I think they’d take a lot more sh*t when it was uncovered than it would be worth in ratings boost. Generally speaking, Time Warner doesn’t have much of a sense of humor.
You’ve convinced me. It’s not only a matter of collusion, it’s probably being dictated by Time Warner and the South Park guys are no doubt playing from a script provided to them. This whole “underdog, counter-culture, bad-boy Davids standing up to the repressive, humorless, stuffed-shirt corporate Goliath” is the kind of hackneyed angle only a corporate PR machine could come up with. The whole thing reeks of corporate machinations.
You South Park fans are being played big time. Poor Parker and Stone. When did they lose control?
Hi Matt
Just checked my email.
You are right. i shall bump head tommorw. Just after they cut it off.
It’s a guess. There’s just too much hype, and it’s stirring up too much news about a rather tired old show.
“and it’s stirring up too much news about a rather tired old show.”
I had stopped watching for a few years, but they’ve been in pretty sharp form for at least the past 2 seasons. Not sure that comment can really stand.
I’m actually constantly amazed that it *isn’t* a tired old show by now. Hell, I didn’t think they would be able to come up with even enough material to fill out the first season way back when.
Manufactured outrage sells.
And who cares? If someone gets outraged by it that’s their issue.
I actually find the whole thing hilarious. From the cartoon, to the right wingnuttery to people trying to say its some giant censorship issue. It’s entertainment. You may not find it funny but it’s selling, and don’t kid yourself over that. They are trying to make money. If causing half the blogoshpere and the religious nutcases around the audience (watching or second hand)go crazy and makes them more money, they are doing their job. If people get all in a bunch about it and start some crusade, there are deeper issues that can’t be blamed on Stone and Parker.
Nothing they are doing is that outrageous compared to some real issues we are dealing with right now.
First the interference with the scientology episode, then the interference with the catholic one, and now the interference with the mohammed thing. This isn’t a manufactured publicity stunt, this is a consistent pattern of behavior by the network. You might think it’s a stunt, however, if you need an excuse not to take a clear stand against muslim behavior. (checks top of page) oh right, this is PZ’s blog. Coulda guessed.
It’s a guess. There’s just too much hype, and it’s stirring up too much news about a rather tired old show.
I think P.Z. was just peeved to learn that Family Guy is written by cranky manatees, and not world-weary octopi.
You can “think” (and I use that term loosely) whatever you want, PZ, but the facts (which you lack more often than not) prove otherwise. Read the letter Comedy Central has sent out here:
South Park Censorship: A Matter of Fear
Here’s the key portion:
“It was with this in mind we decided not to air the image of Muhammad, a decision similar to that made by virtually every single media outlet across the country earlier this year when they each determined that it was not prudent or in the interest of safety to reproduce the controversial Danish cartoons. Injuries occurred and lives were lost in the riots set off by the original publication of these cartoons. The American media made a decision then, as we did now, not to put the safety and well being of the public at risk, here or abroad.”
Translation: they know that Muslims riot and kill en masse when offended. They also know that Christians do not, which is why they continue to allow offensive depictions of Jesus on South Park. (It is also the same reason why you don’t mock and ridicule Muslims here, but have a high time doing it to Christians on virtually a daily basis.)
Translation: they know that Muslims riot and kill en masse when offended. They also know that Christians do not, which is why they continue to allow offensive depictions of Jesus on South Park. (It is also the same reason why you don’t mock and ridicule Muslims here, but have a high time doing it to Christians on virtually a daily basis.)
Well, then, get on the ball, ya big ol’ crybaby. Burn down a few science buildings and maybe a titty bar or two, show God you got some sack. Then maybe them mean ol’ secularists Daarwin-o-CommieNazis won’t be so mean to you and stuff.
And, joy, a link from Little Green Flamingnutballs. Now there’s a bunch you know got its collective head screwed on straight concerning the whole Muslim thing. I know I’m swayed.
Man, where do people get this bizarre idea that I see some greater virtue in Islam than in Christianity? I don’t see much difference between the two: they’re both wacky nonsense. Is it just this blind idea that people have got to believe in something, so if they reject Christianity, they must love Islam?
I hold god-belief of all kinds in contempt. If you think that endears me to Muslims…
Do you watch it on youtube cos you want to boycott CC, or because you’d be watching it from youtube anyway? Doesn’t change anything from their end, they own it. If half watch it on cable and the other half on youtube, and more people total start watching it cos their interest is peaked, the numbers watching it on cable has still risen. Furthermore, CC produces the show. You watch it from anywhere and you’ve viewed their product. I feel silly even explaining how interest in a product helps the distributor of said product.
The network denies bowing to any pressure over the the other 2 episodes. They issue a clear statement regarding this one, pretty premeditated. That indicates something very different and likely disingenuous happening.
That’s no contradiction, just because the format is unserious (satire), doesn’t mean the message is. If you think that Matt and Trey think Satan and Saddam are gay lovers you’re missing the point. They’re making a serious point, just in a roundabout way. I haven’t yet heard anything form Matt and Trey that condradicts this.
I saw these two episodes in their entirety, and when I saw the episodes, I thought the blank seconds were a joke that played on the major theme in the episodes.
Whether they are continuing to perpetuate the joke, or it really was a case of censorship, CNN reported yesterday or today that it was in fact a decision be Comedy Central to blank out the “Mohammed moment” (my term).
I still think it was a joke, and they seem to have carried through with it quite well if it really was.
BTW, the part with the cartoon Jesus and GW defecating all over each other and everyone else was freaking hilarious, and I say this as a former altar boy!
People can’t take a joke.
>Man, where do people get this bizarre idea
>that I see some greater virtue in Islam
>than in Christianity?
From your obviously different tone. When you post about Christianity it’s pretty full throated (like it aught to be). You say “Look at this dumbass, isn’t he stupid, Christianity is for dolts.” But whenever you talk about Islam it’s more like, “Well some Muslims said this bad thing but look so does Michelle Malkin.” or “Muslims aren’t acting right but those Danes were being unnecessarily provocative.” The tone is noticeably different.
It’s not unexpected. I see worse in the English department at LSU. “They have a right to complain, images of Muhammed are against _their_culture_”
Its worth remembering that South Park has previously depicted the image of muhammed. As I recall, he was flying and throwing flames from his hands at an animated statue of Abraham Lincoln.
It’s not unexpected. I see worse in the English department at LSU. “They have a right to complain, images of Muhammed are against _their_culture_”
Yes. And when it comes to Jesus, well, ours is a “secular culture” (as misinformed – or lying – bigots would have you believe), so no big deal portraying him offensively. But we still refrain from portraying Mohammed offensively “out of respect” for the Muslims (or actually because we know what they will do and what Christians won’t).
And, joy, a link from Little Green Flamingnutballs. Now there’s a bunch you know got its collective head screwed on straight concerning the whole Muslim thing. I know I’m swayed.
Yes, because the source means that the Comedy Central email is bogus. You’ll only believe it if it comes from, oh, say Daily “Screw Them” Kos, [Un]Democratic Underground or your lord and savior PZ Myers here.
I find it hilarious that conservative wing-nuts, who call for boycotts of tv networks and cable stations for exposing nipple or saying “cunt” or showing a white chick get it on with a black man, are so hot for a show like Southpark, just because it supposedly supports their political worldview.
I mean, it’s as if they never saw Mr Garrison invent a vehicle controlled by two dildoes…
I for one find it admirable that JMcH can find the time between foot patrols with his unit in downtown Baghdad to post here.
…um, he IS actually serving in the war he supports so proudly…isn’t he?
PZ
We get the bizzare idea that you don’t understand Islam and view it as just another bad belief.
Well, as a raging South Park fan, I have to say that it looks to me like both the Mohammed episodes were really about Scientology. PZ, I think if you watched both episodes in their entirety (and maybe the 12th episode of Season 9, and the first episode of Season 10, just to get the entire picture) you’d see what I’m talking about.
I’ll lay it out just for those who haven’t and/or won’t watch them:
1. Season 9 Ep 12: South Park rips on Scientology (and Tom Cruise, John Travolta, and some other famous Scientologists I can’t think of right now) for the entire episode.
2. One week before Season 10 starts, Isaac Hayes quits (citing South Park’s general insensitivity to religion, but as Matt Stone said, he never had a problem cashing checks when they were making fun of Christians, Mormons, and Muslims for 9 years).
3. Comedy Central suddenly doesn’t air the rerun of the Scientology episode, which was in fact scheduled to air. Rumor (though denied by both parties) has it that Tom Cruise pressured Viacom/Paramount by saying he wouldn’t promote MI:3 if they aired the episode again.
4. Season 10 Ep 1: South Park rips on Scientology for the entire episode. This time, thinly veiled: it’s called the “Super Adventure Club” (and referred to as the “fruity little club that brainwashed [Chef]”, Isaac Hayes’ character.
5. Season 10 Ep 3 & 4: These are the episodes in question, where the whole show is about Fox censoring Family Guy when they show Mohammed.
If you connect the dots, it’s clear (to me at least) that South Park is actually ripping on Comedy Central for caving and not re-running the Scientology episode. They make multiple references to how once an episode of a show is censored or pulled, the show goes off the air, etc. In fact, when I watched it, I didn’t know that Comedy Central had made them censor the image of Mohammed; I thought that was just part of the joke, because it fit in so well with the plot.
And by the way, yes: South Park is NOT to be taken seriously. But that doesn’t mean that censorship of it shouldn’t be. Matt and Trey’s insistence that it’s just a silly show is actually right in line with the 1st amendment claims (in terms of the question “If they’re bothering to censor a silly little show, what aren’t they censoring?”).
Yes, because the source means that the Comedy Central email is bogus. You’ll only believe it if it comes from, oh, say Daily “Screw Them” Kos, [Un]Democratic Underground or your lord and savior PZ Myers here.
Posted by: JMcH | April 15, 2006 12:38 AM
Man, you are way out where the buses don’t run, aren’t you. Personally, I don’t care if the email is bogus, if Comedy Central is buckling under the all-encompasing pressure of the IslamoFacist CommieNazi Horde Of Illegal Immie-grants or even if it’s all a massive punk’d by Messers. Parker & Stone. I do, however, reserve the right to doubt a link – and provider of said link – to a racist, hate-filled site like LGF of anything close to anything like human decency or any sort of claim to moral superiority. I also think it’s interesting a professed Christian with a serious hard-on against the “secular bigots” is apparently more pissed off that Muhammed wasn’t mocked than, apparently, the mocking of Jesus. But then, you champion a site like LGF, so I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised at what drives a cat like you, huh.
And, man…the good Doctor here isn’t my “Lord and Saviour”. He’s just some goober in Minnesota that writes a weblog I enjoy reading. Hell, son, I see you’re name here daily, and I’m of the lurker born; so where does PZ fit into your personal pantheon.
That is just beyond asinine. Do you talk to people like that off-line? Seriously. What in sam hell makes a person think along that lines? And how did Dkos and DU get involved in this?
Weird.
one thing that should probably be mentioned is that the south park writers have been fairly consistently anti-censorship in any form for years, regardless of who does it.
like darius, i saw this as a metaphor for the scientology thing, but also as a larger metaphor for the increasing activities of our federal censorship commission, the fcc. i think that they wanted to point out that the people who file complaints with the fcc because they find something offensive are our culture’s version of those who rioted in protest of the cartoons. they were certainly less violent, but their goal is the same, and i think that the broader message that they were trying to make, in tying together the prophet cartoons, the scientology crap, and fcc complaints, is that censorship in any form is every bit as insidious a threat to our society as terrorism. and i agree.
Let’s see here:
Using personal conviction as justification for a belief,
treating a belief as a statement of fact,
castigating others for not acknowledging this “fact”,
and having one’s opinions intensified by strong feelings of disapproval.
That’s fundy behavior, Dr. Myers.
Duh.
South Park’s entire literary model is to take stories currently playing in the media, and convert them into episodes. (My favorite in that regard was their internet bubble episode, featuring the underpants gnomes.)
See, what happened in real life is what happened in the South Park world. An insignificant reference to the prophet in a peripheral part of the media turns into a firestorm, followed by censorship. The censorship is part of the joke.
Exactly. It’s “edgy”, weird, and inflammatory, exactly what South Park specializes in. The failure by so many to see that it fits so perfectly with what Parker and Stone regularly do is just strange. They’ve managed to turn 3 seconds of a single frame of animation into a focus for outrage…far more effectively than if they’d actually shown a boring, badly done picture of Mohammed.
Like I said, I’ve grown a bit tired of the show, but really…that’s brilliant marketing and showmanship.
I don’t.
However, I am not alone in noticing that you do seem much more willing to criticize Christianity with full tilt outrage than you do Islam. Your tone was noticeably muted and more nuanced at the reaction of Muslims to the Danish cartoons, for instance. (If it were Christians rioting over mockery of their religion, I can’t help but suspect that you wouldn’t have taken such a nuanced position.) Also, I’ve yet to see anything like this blast from the past written by you about Islam.
So, yes, although I don’t think you have any more respect for Islam than for Christianity, you do seem to me a lot less willing to mock Islam as ruthlessly than you routinely mock Christianity.
I forgot to mention this blast from the past from you as well.
Also, this whole thing.
darius’ comment of 03:02 AM seems to have it right.
My own assumption is that these guys are hilarious and brilliant, and successfully pushed the envelope. But I’m also years behind on the show, abd very much working from outside at a great distance, and so I could be wrong.
The notion that the censorship didn’t happen? Still not seeing any evidence, or reason to believe that. Could be true. Cite?
You mean this?
That’s precisely what I mean. The whole story fits together so well.
I’ve actually lost track of what PZ is arguing.
If the claim is simply that South Park was trying to push people’s buttons, and the hysterical right fell for it hook line and sinker, I don’t see anyone here disputing that.
The only thing that’s being added is to point out that from Parker and Stone’s point of view, they were actually most interested in busting balls over the Scientology thing, not the Muhammed thing. And that makes what they did quite a bit more clever than *simply* pumping up the Muhammed issue for its own sake.
I’m also very sure the Muhammed outrage is welcomed icing on the cake and the two of them are eating up this whole thing.
No, you haven’t.
See?
I think we understand that they were trying to push people’s buttons, I don’t think anybody disputes that. The part I don’t get is why you’d think Comedy Central would be in on it or “play along” when they’re the main target of the button pushing.
In fact, without the “censorship ” of the Mohammad bit, the episode would mean little.
It’s so obviously a necessary part of the episode’s structure.
Proof positive of intelligent design of this Southpark episode.
South Park and it’s creators, Parker & Stone are one of the few sources of brave satire in a truly bland media landscape and are deserving recipients of the Peabody Award. If you can’t see the sharp satire because you’re distracted by the scatalogical bits that’s too bad. Who cares if right-wing nutjobs are pushing this? Should I double-check to make sure I’m not accidentally agreeing with them on anything else? What if Michelle Malkin likes dogs? Will I still be able to enjoy spending time with my minerature schnauzer? Sheesh.
I am fully aware that the wingnuts are attracted to this story mainly for the ‘double-standard’ in the treatment of christianity vs. islam *angle*. What they’re missing, or ignoring is that South Park isn’t pushing for equal censorship but NO censorship. The great thing about this episode is that it forces the right wing to defend the cartoon equivalent of “piss christ” in an incredibly subtle manner.
I am fully aware that the wingnuts are attracted to this story mainly for the ‘double-standard’ in the treatment of christianity vs. islam *angle*. What they’re missing, or ignoring is that South Park isn’t pushing for equal censorship but NO censorship. The great thing about this episode is that it forces the right wing to defend the cartoon equivalent of “piss christ” in an incredibly subtle manner.
Right. I’ve never been into South Park, but I’ve always thought that Stone & Parker were pushing what is really a quintessential modern libertarian POV. It’s funny when Young Republican types glom onto the show as an expression of their views and have to ignore so many other things S&P do as well.
I don’t know why no one has yet suggested the obvious: Parker and Stone put in the Muhammad image *knowing* that it would be censored (genuinely) by overly deferential corporate managers.
In other words, the idea that the censorship is genuine, and the idea that the whole controversy was manufactured by Parker and Stone for publicity, are *both* right.
As far as the depictions-of-Mohammed controversy itself: allowing a right not to be offended to override a right to express beliefs others may find offensive would effectively strangle all public discourse.
I’m offended by certain religions claiming that sex is evil (and that some kinds are more evil than others). Should I be allowed to ban them from talking about the “sins” of premarital sex, homosexuality, etc.? I don’t think so. I believe that they have the right to express their hateful nonsense in public, no matter how offensive it is.
Stone and Parker had to know that the scene would be censored and thus crafted the censorship appropriately.
Management had to know that Stone and Parker would react this way.
However, I don’t see this as an example of collusion by both parties to “play” the audience. Stone and Parker did something to show how cowardly the management of Comedy Central is. It was a well placed and well deserved jab.
Having said all this, if they could have shown an image of Mohammed, they certainly would have. If they piss off their bosses or piss off the muslim world, they’ve done their job as political satirists.
And finally, the terrorists have indeed won on this one. Welcome to Sharia law.
Bat Guano,
I don’t really understand what you’re getting so worked up about!
Where in my or any other post here has someone suggested we’re “distracted by the scatalogical bits” of Southpark? My point was that wingnuts are distracted by poop, ass and vagina references at every turn, and yet they have a blind spot when it comes to Southpark! How can that fact not be worthy of comment?
Enjoy the cock jokes! More cock jokes to ya. I’ll send a truckload of cock jokes to your door if you’d like, dipshit!
“South Park is grating frat humor. Not funny.”
“It’s silly and childish.”
Pastor, I agree that the wingnuts are hypocritical when it comes to defending free speech. My previous comment says as much. Mentioning the scatalogical aspects of the show was my attempt at responding to what seemed to me an ad hominem dismissal of the merit of South Park by some because the right-wing happened to like the episode. I think you misread my “that’s too bad” to mean “tough shit” when it was meant more in the tone of a lament. Sorry for the confusion. That doesn’t let you off the hook for the promised “truckload of cock jokes” though. If I’m not there to sign for them, tell the delivery driver it’s OK to leave them at the convent next to my house. Those nuns love the dick jokes. ;)
Bat Guano,
Pretty smart of you to quote selectively from a single post. But here is is in it’s entirety:
“South Park is grating frat humor. Not funny.
Malkin, on the other hand, is hilarious. ”
If you can’t read fluent snark, maybe you can find a translator.
maybe I’m a bit stupid, but I don’t understand how you can portray someone when nobody knows what he looked like. suppose you announced that out of respect you were going to use a placeholder instead of depicting the image of mohammed, and you had a guy in a giant fish suit playing the part of mohammed … would that violate sharia? and if not, where is the line?
Nobody knows what the supposed Jesus guy looked like either (mythicism bracketed for the moment) and yet there are ten gazillion representations of him.
Pastor, you seem a bit tense. I’m sorry that you feel so personally offended by an oblique, non-specific, passing comment that you interpreted as a personal accusation that you might be turned off by scatalogical humor. I promise to never to question your love for poop jokes again. :)