Comedy Central censors South Park

[The Lonely Rationalist]

If, like me, you were looking forward to last night's new South Park episode, you were baffled. Not only was Muhammad's image no shown (No surprise there), but Comedy Central actually bleeped out any mention of his name.

Furthermore, a 30 second speech by one of the main characters, which did not mention Muhammad or Islam, about fear and intimidation was totally removed by the network. Going to South Park's website to see the episode brings this message up:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/267116/

The creators of South Park respond here:

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/...eators-respond/

Furthermore, an old episode from Season 5 which featured Muhammad has been removed from South Park's website as well:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103940/

This is really just pathetic. A network like Comedy Central, which fashions itself as "edgy," and "progressive," now refuses to risk offending Muslims just because of a few empty threats.

[Jake_Ellison]

Well, they're not empty threats, and those who do ignore them are usually left defenseless, as evidenced by what is happening to the Danish cartoonists who published those Muhammad caricatures a while back.

If the people who issued the death threats had been arrested, Comedy Central would've probably handled this differently.

[Dante]

Yeah, this sucked. Complain here:

http://www.comedycentral.com/help/questionsCC.jhtml

[Dante]

Well, they're not empty threats, and those who do ignore them are usually left defenseless, as evidenced by what is happening to the Danish cartoonists who published those Muhammad caricatures a while back.

If the people who issued the death threats had been arrested, Comedy Central would've probably handled this differently.

Well, they threatened Trey Parker and Matt Stone, but both of them wanted the episode aired anyways.

[The Lonely Rationalist]

Funnily enough, the site that made threats against South Park has been hacked: http://www.revolutionislam.com/

[Rudmer]

Funnily enough, the site that made threats against South Park has been hacked: http://www.revolutionislam.com/

Not really hacked, more like bombarded (DDoSed). Anonymous was not happy.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Rudmer

[Black Wolf]

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/...-park-creators/

It was a warning, not a threat.

[Geoff]

Sounds like someone has a little sand in their vagina.

[The Lonely Rationalist]

It was a warning, not a threat.

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=173626

Saying "You'll probably end up dead," and then showing a picture of Theo Van Gogh's corpse is a threat in my book, albeit a cowardly one.

Oh, and for good measure, the head of this website said that the creators of South Park "should feel threatened by what they did." And he praised Bin Laden's "sacrifice for the religion."

Edited April 23, 2010 by The Lonely Rationalist

[Black Wolf]

Ah, so he was trying to CYA. And a sympathizer fell for it.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Black Wolf

[Maximus]

If you wimp out to threats, the terrorists win.

[softwareNerd]

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=173626

Saying "You'll probably end up dead," and then showing a picture of Theo Van Gogh's corpse is a threat in my book, albeit a cowardly one.

Oh, and for good measure, the head of this website said that the creators of South Park "should feel threatened by what they did." And he praised Bin Laden's "sacrifice for the religion."

Yes, also they posted the addresses of the writers whom they were "warning". There is absolutely no doubt about the motives of the guys who own the site. The main guy -- who lives in NYC -- was interviewed on TV and says positive things about 9/11 and the guys who carried it out. While it may not be legally actionable under U.S. law, the threat is clear enough.

[softwareNerd]

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=173626

Saying "You'll probably end up dead," and then showing a picture of Theo Van Gogh's corpse is a threat in my book, albeit a cowardly one.

Oh, and for good measure, the head of this website said that the creators of South Park "should feel threatened by what they did." And he praised Bin Laden's "sacrifice for the religion."

Yes, also they posted the addresses of the writers whom they were "warning". There is absolutely no doubt about the motives of the guys who own the site. The main guy -- who lives in NYC -- was interviewed on TV and says positive things about 9/11 and the guys who carried it out. While it may not be legally actionable under U.S. law, the threat is clear enough.

[rebelconservative]

I'm not sure it is censorship, which refers to government officials restricting publications, and it is the right of Comedy Central to refuse to carry the episode, unedited, on their network - unless stipulated otherwise in the contract they have with South Park's creators.

Of course, it is pathetic, wimping out and they have let the terrorists win a small, but significant, victory. South Park is an irreverent show that stands for free-speech and pokes fun at pretty much everything... but now Islam is off limits? The Christian Right will go crazy with this.

[Trebor]

This is really just pathetic. A network like Comedy Central, which fashions itself as "edgy," and "progressive," now refuses to risk offending Muslims just because of a few empty threats.

The fault belongs with our (US) government, not with Comedy Central or with the two creators of the show, for not actually standing up to Islamofascism in the protection of individual rights. Neither Comedy Central nor the creators refuse to risk offending Muslims just because of a few empty threats. The threats are not empty. Without confidence that you can protect yourself against such threats, especially without confidence that your government will protect you, it's too much to expect individuals to risk their own lives. Would you?

Morality ends at the point of a gun.

Bomb Tehran!

[gags]

The fault belongs with our (US) government, not with Comedy Central or with the two creators of the show, for not actually standing up to Islamofascism in the protection of individual rights. Neither Comedy Central nor the creators refuse to risk offending Muslims just because of a few empty threats. The threats are not empty. Without confidence that you can protect yourself against such threats, especially without confidence that your government will protect you, it's too much to expect individuals to risk their own lives. Would you?

Other parties are also at fault here. If every newspaper in America had published the Danish cartoons, what would the Islamists have done? Could they have blown up every newspaper office in the country? Along the same lines, Comedy Central should make the South Park episode available to every TV station and ask that they broadcast it.... and they should do so. The Islamists can't kill us all.

[Jake_Ellison]

Yes, also they posted the addresses of the writers whom they were "warning". There is absolutely no doubt about the motives of the guys who own the site. The main guy -- who lives in NYC -- was interviewed on TV and says positive things about 9/11 and the guys who carried it out. While it may not be legally actionable under U.S. law, the threat is clear enough.

It's close enough that the Police should arrest them and let the Courts decide that. There's been plenty of violence committed for the same exact reason, so the Police ought to pay special attention to every threat Muslim Fundamentalists make.

The cowardice is entirely on the part of the government, not a company which wants nothing to do with death threats. I'd probably do the exact same thing, I don't feel like getting killed over something this society isn't willing to stand up to.

[Trebor]

Other parties are also at fault here. If every newspaper in America had published the Danish cartoons, what would the Islamists have done? Could they have blown up every newspaper office in the country? Along the same lines, Comedy Central should make the South Park episode available to every TV station and ask that they broadcast it.... and they should do so. The Islamists can't kill us all.

The right of free speech requires defense against actual threats. If the government doesn't protect free speech, then there is no free speech -- free from the initiation of the use of force in retaliation for speech. Neither newspapers nor individuals possess their own armies or police forces to defend against such threats. That's the purpose of a proper government.

[Trebor]

Article and photo from CharlesHugo.net :: 2 November - Death of a filmmaker Edited April 25, 2010 by softwareNerd
Link edited at poster's request.

[gags]

The right of free speech requires defense against actual threats. If the government doesn't protect free speech, then there is no free speech -- free from the initiation of the use of force in retaliation for speech. Neither newspapers nor individuals possess their own armies or police forces to defend against such threats. That's the purpose of a proper government.

Yes, of course that's a proper function of government. However, I would like to see newspapers and TV stations universally stand up and declare that they won't be intimidated by the Islamist knuckle-draggers. The New York Times, Washington Post and USA Today should have put the Danish cartoons on their front pages. CBS, ABC and NBC should broadcast the uncensored South Park episode in prime time. Unfortunately, they don't have the balls to do it. This is the really ugly side of political correctness.

[Trebor]

However, I would like to see newspapers and TV stations universally stand up and declare that they won't be intimidated by the Islamist knuckle-draggers....Unfortunately, they don't have the balls to do it. This is the really ugly side of political correctness.

If newspapers and TV stations are intimidated by threats, then I would like to see them state that explicitly. That would put the burden where it belongs, on the government for not defending free speech.

To the extent to which the newspapers and TV stations appease those who threaten free speech instead, by saying, for example, that they don't wish to offend anyone, then they share in the philosophical corruption, including political correctness, which has given us a government that fails, even refuses, to defend rights.

Edited to add that I too would like to see the newspapers and TV stations universally stand up and declare that they "won't be intimidated by the Islamist knuckle-draggers," or anyone else, and for the government to state that it will do what is necessary to ensure their freedom from intimidation, proving itself in action.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Trebor

[Trebor]

From Gary Hull's blog, 'Muhammad: The "Banned" Images Blog'

Statement of Principle: Free Expression at Risk, at Yale and Elsewhere"

[softwareNerd]

If newspapers and TV stations are intimidated by threats, then I would like to see them state that explicitly. That would put the burden where it belongs, on the government for not defending free speech.

Yes, if the media feels intimidated, the least one can expect of them is to advertise this feeling to their viewers and readers. The way they go about it, they end up providing their persecutors with cover the latter did not even request. Instead of a bear suit, simply exclude Mohammed while running a scroll that says something along the lines of: "Islam has not been portrayed in this sketch due to threats from some organizations".

A couple of decades ago, the Indian government imposed press censorship. When they did so, some papers went along quietly. Some opposition newspapers ran some articles with parts clearly redacted. From memory, I think that they were made to stop doing that too; but, while they could use that loophole, they did. They tried their best not to go along with the sham that there was no censorship.

If the newspapers here are scared to run the famous cartoons, let them at least run a "black band" somewhere in the paper as a reminder to their readers.

When the media gets on someone's case, they can destroy a person. So, why are the stories about these New York based organizations who threaten people not on everyone's mind, with voters starting to think that the government "ought to do something about this"?

Edited April 23, 2010 by softwareNerd

[Trebor]

When the media gets on someone's case, they can destroy a person. So, why are the stories about these New York based organizations who threaten people not on everyone's mind, with voters starting to think that the government "ought to do something about this"?

That's a good question.

The short answer is: pragmatism.

Quoting from Dr. Peikoff's talk (towards the end), "Why Should One Act on Principle?" (available on the Ayn Rand Institute's site on one's "Registered User" page):

"Why should one act on principle? My answer is, in the end, you cannot avoid it. Some principle always wins. If the right principles, the rational ones, are not conscious, explicit absolutes in men's minds, then their evil opposites take over by default and ultimately win out. That is why, in our pragmatist, unprincipled age, all the wrong principles are winning and we see every form of irrationality, cowardice, injustice and tyranny sweeping the world.

It's not enough, therefore, merely to act on principles. Man needs to act consciously on rational principles, principles based upon the facts of reality, principles that promote and sustain human life. If you accept irrational principles, such as religious dogmas or mystical commandments, by contrast, you will find that you can't live by them consistently, precisely because they are irrational and clash with reality, and you will be driven to pragmatism in despair as your only alternative."

And a bit later:

"Why should one act on principle? The deepest and final answer is, for the same reason one should jump out of the path of a speeding truck, because if one doesn't, he will be squashed by an unforgiving nemesis, an absolute reality."

What is free speech? In today's context, it's not an absolute, we have to be practical; the purpose of government is not a matter of principles, but to weigh conflicting opinions and demands, and draw arbitrary lines depending upon the political winds.

[IchorFigure]

S.O.B. I just got done looking through the various forums to see if there was a thread on this. But I already submitted a post in the other SouthPark thread. Oh well, I will just repost it here if that's ok.

-------------------

Comedy Central has really outdone themselves this time. Not only did they censor the image of Muhammed in South Park's latest episodes (200 and 201), but they went so far as to bleep his name out, and even bleeped the entire ending speech that didn't even mention his name.

From the official website SouthParkStudios:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/news/3878

A Statement from Matt and Trey

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.

This is completely outrageous if you ask me. I found an e-mail form for Comedy Central's feedback comments and sent them a piece of my mind.

http://www.comedycentral.com/help/questionsCC.jhtml

Here's what I wrote them:

Subject:Censorship of South Park ep.200/201

Your company's willingness to appease totalitarian Islamists is disgusting. Companies in the media industry rely upon the principal of freedom of speech to exist. However, you're company has so thoroughly sold out and shown to the world that you value the petty threats of murderous thugs over freedom of speech. I wanted to make it known that this is completely unacceptable. Your appeasement only signals to anyone crazy enough that it is ok to threaten someone with violence when they say something they dislike. As well as serving to invite even bolder threats. I'm not willing to make death threats to get what I want, and so I doubt to see much change or an apology. But perhaps you'd understand that if you had even cared about the integrity of the shows you air.

I hope others will feel the same way and flood their feedback with criticism.