We previously posted on the death threats levied against South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, here. 
The extremists appear to have succeeded. Comedy Central confirmed that they blocked out mention of Mohammad’s name and image in the later episode.
South Park’s series continued yesterday with the “Prophet Muhammad” bleeped out and the character blocked out with a large label reading “censored.”
Comedy Central’s actions will serve to embolden and encourage similar attacks against other writers and artists. There is certainly nothing funny about that.
The program has routinely mad fun of Jesus and other religious figures.
The decision is reminiscent of the disgraceful decision by Yale University Press to delete all of the controversial cartoons in a book on the earlier controversy, here.
For the full story, click here.
Not so funny.
They will probably blame the Gaza Surf Club for the threat.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2010/04/gaza-surf-club-on-earth-day.html
Kinda sad. But I’m not the one getting the death threats, and I’m not going to criticize Comedy Central or anyone else who is. It is completely their choice how they decide to react to a potential threat like this.
When terrorists gain compliance through intimidation, they win.
That’s not funny. Just a sad, sad fact.
“Not Funny: Comedy Central Accused of Self-Censorship of South Park”
*******************
Self-censorship is no character flaw. Heck, I do it all the time on my blog comments and find it a virtue when others do it. The flaw is cowardice in the face of oppression, and that is what is happening here.
Absolutely shameful. One of the purposes of the episode was to point out the hypocrisy on Comedy Central’s part that allows them to show Buddha snorting cocaine and Jesus looking at internet pornography, but not even show Mohammad’s image. What does Comedy Central do? Censor not only his image but the very word “Mohammad”. Mind-blowingly poor choice on their part.
BTW, when Comedy Central censors the creators of a TV show, that’s just plain “censorship” not “self-censorship”. Self-censorship will be if Matt Stone and Trey Parker eventually give up pushing this particular boundary.
I would suspect that the reasoning behind this action has absolutely nothing to do with respect for Muslims or their prophet but rather with fear of the extremes to which some Muslims will go in demanding even phony respect for their prophet.
I don’t expect some Comedy Central secretary’s life, taken by a crazy Muslim because she was the only one he could reach, is worth it.
Comedy Central’s action in this case says a lot more about Muslims than it does about the network. Any Muslim who thinks there was any respect for their prophet involved ………..
Hmmm… What about plain, old politeness?
I certainly think that the South Park folks should have the RIGHT to say/do stupid, obnoxious things. But … depicting Mohammad is just plain rude to many millions of people around the world. Personally, I don’t feel like I understand that prohibition as anything more than an arbitrary rule, but lots of decent folks feel very strongly about the issue. I generally like South Park, and I haven’t seen this episode yet, but I doubt that the point that they were making really rises to the level of justifying such an extreme move.
Maybe it isn’t a good metaphorical fit, but think (or don’t!) of the rape scene in the movie “Showgirls.” Yes, the film makers have the right to depict that, but the movie was so bad that the really aren’t justified in depicting something so really horrific.
Depicting Jesus raping small boys would be really, really offensive to lots of Christians. But under the current circumstances, that might be a justifiable element of a South Park episode dealing with the coverup of sexual abuse of children that is present in essentially all Christian denominations. (Interestingly, we’re using the term “censorship” in this case, but I’d bet that South Park would run into a lot more “real,” “hard” censorship if they tried to show a scene where an adult was sexually assaulting a child, compared with depicting Mohammad.)
There are two other problems with actually depicting Mohammad that I see immediately, on top of it just being rude. First, it puts South Park in line with racial/religious bigots who would want to do this specifically because it is rude to people they view as inferior. Also, it just gives more credibility and “ammunition” to the fringe, violent extremists. Are those scum bags worth it?
There never was an real threat of legal censorship of South Park on this. It wasn’t particularly “courageous” of them. Any jerk can get a piece of cardboard, draw Mohammad on it and parade around making an ass of himself down at Bughouse Square. No law enforcement is going to stop him.
Or try taking your cartoon to a gathering of elderly Muslim women and wave it around. I don’t think you’d feel particularly “brave,” or that you’re making some important point. Rather, if you’re much of a human being, you’d probably end up feeling like a tiny, little turd.
Couldn’t the South Park guys have come up with a smarter way to make the point than just directly violating the taboo?
From the linked article: “Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee of RevolutionMuslim wrote on his Twitter account “May Allah kill Matt Stone and Trey Parker and burn them in Hell for all eternity. They insult our prophets Muhammad, Jesus, and Moses…” ”
Another cartoon jihadi Younus Abdullah Muhammad further explained “I think it’s very clear what we are saying. Under Islam, the punishment for insulting Muhammad is death . . . You saw the picture of Theo Van Gogh lying (dead) on the streets in Europe. At the end of the day there is a very real possibility that this will be the outcome for the ‘South Park’ creators.”
—-
What is hard for me to grasp is why Al-Amrikee and Mr. Muhammad have not been rounded up with others, of whatever stripe, like the ” Break their windows. Break them NOW” fool Mike Vanderboegh and sent to Gitmo for interrogation. Nothing illegal or immoral, no torture, just several months of detention and interrogation by the FBI for inciting violence and the possibility that they have information about terrorists that will do their publicly disclosed bidding.
One of the reasons I voted for Obama was his pledge to close Gitmo; it and Bagram and the other black sites and rendition are abominations to the Constitution. I love the First Amendment. But I admit I’m also morally corrupt and pragmatic to a real fault. I’d remain discretely silent if the hate/violence talkers of every stripe spent some quality time being schooled by the full weight of the government on the point that their words have consequences.
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/03/anti-hcr-teabagger-mike-vanderboegh-is.html
James M.: “BTW, when Comedy Central censors the creators of a TV show, that’s just plain “censorship” not “self-censorship”.”
—
Right, Comedy Central should have been consistant and backed Parker and Stone IMO.
I swear to God, organized religion is going to be the death of us all.
Isn’t Muhammad on the Supreme Court building? There’s a sculpture of him holding a sword and a Quran if i remember correctly.
Tom,
It’s “rude” so censorship is justifiable? Not only does this same episode have Buddha snorting cocaine, but they’ve made fun of various religious figures. The entire episode is rehashing all the celebrities and cultural trends they’ve bashed in past years. It’s a juvenile show, and admittedly so, and to expect something “polite” to come from the same station that airs Crank Yankers is beyond my level of comprehension.
Professor, it’s worth mentioning that Muhammed has been shown in previous episodes of South Park without controversy. The Super Friends are from an earlier episode and Muhammed spoke, was shown, etc…
I agree with the view of TomD.Arch…
I am an atheist, yet I find no reason to offend people’ beliefs purposely and without any real purpose…
I don’t consider this to be censorship as much as I consider it to be politeness and respect… or in south park’s case just plain fear…
you address your message or speech based on your audience, if your audience cannot comprehend certain “concepts” you adjust your communication methods until they catch up with you…
you approach change, like everything else, in small steps…
we all know muslims are not ready for this yet (and I honestly don’t think that making fun of jesus, buddha or moses is funny or justified)… there are many reasons why you can’t compare muslims to christians… add to that the fact that the depiction of muhammad in any way, shape or form is explicitly forbidden, not for the reasons those individuals interpret it, but because it is the unfortunately the prevailing view right now…
mespo-
“The flaw is cowardice in the face of oppression, and that is what is happening here.”
Succinctly and well said.
Blouise-
“Comedy Central’s action in this case says a lot more about Muslims than it does about the network. Any Muslim who thinks there was any respect for their prophet involved ………..”
I wouldn’t even go that far. I think it says a lot about a tiny subset of stone-aged level savages. Most Muslims are as horrified as we are. I wish to also stress that I am not singling out Muslim fanatics; there are plenty of Christian fanatics in my own country that I would also characterize that way. Hell, some of them are in high office.
TomD.Arch-
“I certainly think that the South Park folks should have the RIGHT to say/do stupid, obnoxious things. But … depicting Mohammad is just plain rude to many millions of people around the world.”
And they have the simplest remedy imaginable: don’t watch. There is no right to not have your feelings hurt.
“Interestingly, we’re using the term “censorship” in this case, but I’d bet that South Park would run into a lot more “real,” “hard” censorship if they tried to show a scene where an adult was sexually assaulting a child, compared with depicting Mohammad.”
South Park has repeatedly depicted Catholic priests and bishops walking around with naked children on leashes. I’d say that’s a lot more directly offensive than simply showing a picture. There is also the issue that Comedy Central has already allowed them to show Muhammad, but it was pre-9/11, so it was apparently ok then.
“Couldn’t the South Park guys have come up with a smarter way to make the point than just directly violating the taboo?”
Violating taboos is a long and time honored method of satire and social commentary. They were not depicting Muhammad just to piss people off. They were commenting on the specter of fanatics killing people and strong-arming entire companies into blocking the expression of artists and journalists.
To the Rude Brigade:
The Right to Be Offended is one of the prices of The Right To Free Speech. One of the corollary rights like The Right To Ignore. So if you find any of this offensive, feel free to ignore it.
Comply with terrorists because they think one is rude?
Screw that and screw them and, yep I’m a goin’ there, screw their retrograde God too.
If your God (of all things) can’t take a joke, He/She/It isn’t much of a God, but rather a pissy little child.
The Right to Free Speech gives me the right to say what I please no matter who likes/dislikes/loves/hates/is offended by/is encouraged by my words. If the audience doesn’t like it, they can refute it, ignore it, or STFU. But the “Right” Not to Be Offended Because Others Vocally Disagree With Your Belief System (a non-existent right and bullshit concept) somehow trumps a Constitutional Right for an American citizen? Just like the same Constitutional Right Mr.’s Parker and Stone exercise?
Not only “No”, but “Hell No”. Compromise is not appropriate when it comes to your rights. One has the right to say what they like and worship as they like but the natural cost of allowing all viewpoints is that someone is going to be offended.
Pardon me.
Someone is going to be completely monkey shit unhinged pissed off and totally fucking offended.
And they can say something about it.
But what they CANNOT do is use force to take the rights of citizen who offended them.
Be that force direct or implicit as in the threat of violence.
(don’t tell Buddha that I completely agree with him/her, ‘cept for the cussin’)
But I must say that these people are serious about killing folks for speech. This is scary stuff.
When Free Inquiry magazine decided to become the first US publisher to reprint the controversial Danish cartoons in 2006, both Borders and Barnes and Noble stopped selling it.
“Someone is going to be completely monkey shit unhinged pissed off and totally fucking offended.
And they can say something about it.
But what they CANNOT do is use force to take the rights of citizen who offended them.
Be that force direct or implicit as in the threat of violence.”
I absolutely agree!…..in theory……while no-one is holding a gun to MY head….and I don’t have to look over my shoulder….
I don’t see the cowardice here…Matt and Trey did not back down…they did what people in this country do every day….made a complying moderation in order to keep their jobs. It is offensive because it is in the limelight but most people have to do this EVERY DAY and not because their lives have been physically threatened. Kudos to them for keeping the conversation and truth alive. And Comedy Central….they are not police…I’m sure they don’t want blood on their hands. The real world exists between the idealistic extremes and the fundamental terrorists and to call someone a coward for living in the real world may be, well, cowardly….
Wootsy,
There is something you are missing here. No, Matt and Trey didn’t back down. Comedy Central did it for them. A corporate decision that has zero to do with legal or general ethics and everything to do with avoiding potential civil liability for Viacom should terrorists attack. Ergo it was not a decision made upon a guaranteed Constitutional Right of individual citizens but rather compliance to the demands of terrorists made from the sole basis of a corporate profit motive.
And here I thought that episode was a clever satire of censorship… I should have known I was giving those two hacks too much credit.
Matthew Stone 1, April 22, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Tom,
It’s “rude” so censorship is justifiable?
————————————————-
I guess I didn’t do too bad a job presenting my position if only one commenter totally missed my point.
“It is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere [in the propagation of religious teachings] when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.”
–Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779.
@Buddha,
No, I don’t think I missed that….and I agree with you, but we have law enforcement and civil rights lawyers and agencies whose jobs it is to counter those types of threats…but I personally don’t have a lot of confidence in them these days.
you said; “A corporate decision that has zero to do with legal or general ethics and everything to do with avoiding potential civil liability for Viacom should terrorists attack. Ergo it was not a decision made upon a guaranteed Constitutional Right of individual citizens but rather compliance to the demands of terrorists made from the sole basis of a corporate profit motive.”
see I agree with that statement. But I don’t see the courts standing up for individual citizens and their Constitutional rights. I see citizens fighting wars that Government sends them to in order to garner profits for Halliburtons and other beneficiaries of outsourced Gov. work….I see SCOTUS giving Corporations the protection s and rights of personhood AGAINST the citizenry of the US of A…so , I’m sorry, what burden to ensure a RIGHT did you want someone ELSE to carry? It’s a team effort and Joe Schmoe the workin’ guy
is not the coward…and the Corporation may be enjoying the secondary gain of profit and less liability for putting a lid on Matt and Treys exuberance. I will miss that from them….
It isn’t about a potential lawsuit, it’s about the potential loss of lives.
Wootsy,
“You’re endangering somebody else.” That’s a bullshit cowardly argument when it comes to your rights. If Jefferson and the others had been so facile and compliant to the will of others, we’d still be English subjects. Tyrant or terrorists, they have this in common: Terrorism and tyranny only work when you give in to the demands of terrorists and tyrants. And if you think that corporation has one bit of concern over the lives of its employees as compared to their P/L statement? To the corporate officers at Viacom (or GE or GM or you name the multinational), lives mean a dollar figure that can be calculated and corporations have historically proven that they’ll pay a cost in blood if it means they can reap a profit in cash. Two words for you: Ford Pinto. The cost of the lawsuits was not outweighing the cost of a recall so Ford kept churning out the lil’ exploding death wagons. Business at that scale has no ethics but a bottom line. It’s naive to assume otherwise.
You give Viacom waaaaay too much credit. They could give a rat’s ass about the lives of their employees. Even less than they care about your civil rights. But they care about civil court losses. That’s why they have a full time staff of lawyers and risk managers like any company that size.
But this wasn’t about protecting employees first and foremost with Viacom. It was about protecting Sumner Redstone’s money. Because if he thought he’d get more ad revenue by torturing an employee to death on air and get away with it? Say like Jon Stewart? It’d be renamed “The Daily Inquisition with Tomas de Torquemada” and that lovely news desk would be replaced with a rack and an iron maiden.
Other people don’t register as humans with sociopaths.
They register as poker chips though.
“Don’t hate the player! Hate the game!” is the war cry of sociopaths everywhere.
And fear of an attack that is out of your (or anyone other than the terrorist’s) personal control dictating how you exercise your Constitutional rights only plays into the hands of both the fascists and the terrorists. You abrogate your rights to the will of the corporation. You give the terrorists what they want (compliance with their demands).
I don’t object to Comedy Central’s decision. Here’s why: http://innocentsmithjournal.com/2010/04/23/censoring-south-park/
“If Jefferson and the others had been so facile and compliant to the will of others, we’d still be English subjects.”
well Duddha, now we are Corporate subjects.
Again, I don’t disagree with you with the exception that it IS a team effort and our courts and governing officials are supposed to be part of that TEAM. That is not how it is playing out. SCOTUS did not say that sociopaths have personhood, they said Corporations have personhood and when you or me or any other non-Corporate type goes up against them….they don’t play fair and the powers that be don’t call them on it.
In this dynamic it seems to me that the ‘terrorists’ and ‘tyrants’ may be a little closer to home.
So I agree with Mespo in his Jefferson”
“It is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere [in the propagation of religious teachings] when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.”
–Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779.
we must needs to take care of the bully at home before we can point fingers overseas…
@innocentsmithjournal,
I like that column, it resonates. This line hit me as appropos…”For it is not at all self-evident that freedom and non-interference are synonymous.”
when you look at studies about bullies what you find is that ignoring them DOES NOT help and in fact can escalate the matter. Strangely though, it isn’t the actions of their target that have the most impact, it is the actions of those who look on. That is why in schools these days there is an effort to get kids to speak up and out when they see bullying.
I personally think that Matt and Trey do wonderful work 99% of the time. They have an irritating method of pushing boundaries that forces people to question ‘normal’. I do think this time they may have crossed the line. Irritating fundy terrorists is not the same as calling them on their drecht…
So one fights a bully at home by capitulation to a foreign bully?
Hear that noise?
That’s Sun Tzu spinning in his grave, Wootsy.
“Under Islam, the punishment for insulting Muhammad is death .”
and from the Bible;
Thou shalt not take the Lord G*ds name in vain.
The wages of sin is death.
The Ten Commandments of Buddhism
1. Do not destroy life.
2. Do not take what is not given you.
3. Do not commit adultery.
4. Tell no lies and deceive no one.
5. Do not become intoxicated.
6. Eat temperately and not at all in the afternoons.
7. Do not watch dancing, nor listen to singing or plays.
8. Wear no garlands, perfumes or any adornments.
9. Sleep not in luxurious beds.
10. Accept no gold or silver.
so, just for discussions sake, I would say anyone who actually follows these strict tenets….is likely to be a little cranky…
Wootsy,
If you’d like to explain how capitulating to terrorists somehow helps us fight fascism at home I’d really like to hear that instead of you braying about Buddhism. Because that’s the can of worms you opened. It’s funnier than Hell. Attack me or Buddhism all you like. Doing so shows some really inadequate assumptions underpinning your evasion. You have no tools that can harm and/or offend me. Nor will it change the ridiculous nature of your assertion free speech is somehow better served by giving natural citizens rights over to corportist decisions used in their place. Or that placating terrorists by censoring one of the very rights they so loathe us for is a benefit for society when it, duh, gives the terrorists exactly what they demand.
How is further degrading a right helping preserve our rights in specific or in toto?
It isn’t, but I’m willing to watch you try to explain it.
Or you can evade some more.
@BIL,
“Attack me or Buddhism all you like. ”
It was never my intention to attack you, I do not see that I did. I was pointing out in my post that there is plenty of fundamental fodder here at home and we are not so superior to those of Islams teachings.
My avatars name is Woosty, not Wootsy, it is becoming an affront because I have pointed it out before and you continue to either deliberately ignore for some reason or you are visually deaf.
As I have said, I agree with your idealistic premiss, but down here on the Earth, we must see the reality of our actions. My point is,
we have citizenry who more than do their part in keeping the laws alive, they are being martyred. We don’t need no more stinkin martyrs. We do need our Governing infrastructure to do their part. Corporations act the way they do because they have been encouraged and allowed. There is a time for the expressions that affront those who live elsewhere and have a right to live as they choose and a time to make sure you are not behaving like a hypocrite. All the rights in the world are meaningless if you are dead.
As you are such a fan of the Sun…here is his take on what I am trying to say (hope I am being succinct…)
‘Generals are assistants of the Nation. When their assistance is complete, the country is strong. When their assistance is defective, the country is weak.’
ps; the Woosty does not bray…there are meows, occasional pfffffffts, and lots of purrs
@Woosty: Just for clarification: the ten precepts (Buddhism has no commandments) are observed by novice monks and nuns, not laymen.
And I don`t think that BiL is really a practicing Buddhist. Most Buddhists (especially in the west) try not to conflate Siddhartha Gautama (the founder of Buddhism and the most famous Buddha) with Budei (the Chinese river god depicted in BiL’s avatar who is sometimes seen as the Buddha Maitreya).
No, Wootsy. I’m not visually deaf. I’m a sloppy typist. However, if you want to be an ass about it I’ll be glad to call you Wootsy purposefully from now on. I’m easy that way. Just ask Tootles.
You do indeed bray.
And evade.
How is further degrading a right helping preserve our rights in specific or in toto?
Tell me “down here on Earth” one more time too. It’s funny when you try to act dismissive while agreeing in principle. What’s next? I “just don’t understand”?
You cannot refute the logic that substituting a corporate exercise of choice over the rights of a natural citizen in exercising their free speech is a degradation and abrogation of that right. You cannot refute that giving a terrorist what they demand is victory for the terrorists. You cannot refute that censorship in the name of religion/profits/placation is counter to the very concept of free speech let alone censorship imposed by a legal fiction over the rights of the natural citizen. You cannot refute this so you say “well down here on Earth” and “if you’re dead” like that’s some kind of logical talisman when it’s argument by platitude and reduction to the absurd. What good are your rights if you’re dead? About the same value as if you give them away except if you’re dead you might have died on your feet with dignity instead of in subjugation on your knees.
You can certainly be an apologist for those actions though. A door mat for terrorist demands too. That’s your choice.
I hope that was succinct enough.
Wootsy.
By the way, brush up on the term “slippery slope” since you can’t seem to identify one.
Berliner,
Good call. Nice to see you too. Been awhile since I’ve caught you post.
For those interested in the actual precepts of Buddhism as a philosophy, this is a good place to start.
http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/eightfoldpath.html
“You cannot refute the logic that substituting a corporate exercise of choice over the rights of a natural citizen in exercising their free speech is a degradation and abrogation of that right. You cannot refute that giving a terrorist what they demand is victory for the terrorists. You cannot refute that censorship in the name of religion/profits/placation is counter to the very concept of free speech let alone censorship imposed by a legal fiction over the rights of the natural citizen.”
I do not refute these things.
“I’m a sloppy typist. ”
…on purpose?
Evade?
“Tell me “down here on Earth” one more time too.”
Down here on Earth, you have dog poopie on your shoes….
@Berliner,
yes, …I am not a Buddhist. My post was pointing out the similarities between many religions, right down to the fundamentals. I could have written a epic but that looked like it would do the trick.
Unfortunately it just seemed to piss the Buddha off.
South Park has done this before. Why such a fuss now? —
Better one have dog poop on the shoes than corporatist apologist poop on the nose, Woot.
Don’t be nasty Buddha, we don’t agree about somethings but in the substance of ideal we agree…
I wasn’t the cat who dragged poop into the conversation so clean your own liter box before digging in mine, m’kay?
I don’t dig in other peeps boxes, but if you ever put some wings to your words
regarding Corporate nefariousness….then I’ll be thrilled to clean the poopay off your shoes…
….and I wasn’t apologizing for the dwarf corps….I was saying that endangering Matt and trey for doing something unnecessary was not necessary.
Corporations have been violating the rights, safety and general well being of the citizenry for a very long time…free speech is not the trump card in this instance, IMHO.
Well if you don’t think I think fascism (resulting from the campaign graft system) is the primary problem with our government, you need to re-read my posts more carefully, Woot. As to the “poop” on my shoes, save your condescension for someone who cares, oh that which kisses Viacom corporate butt while agreeing they are violating civil rights in their censorship.
Poop, Janus?
Cat’s clean themselves with their tongues.
Look out!
You got some on you. And it’s of your own making, double talker.
I love it! 2 meows and a paws up
Threats by foreign subjects against the citizenry of the USA are not threats against free speech at home, they are acts of terrorism. YES
The Corporation Viacom censored South Park. YES
Viacom has impinged on South Parks right of free speech to proect profits. Maybe, viacom may own some of the rights to what M&T do on South Park.
They should be held accountable by the powers that be to protect the tenets of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. -do you think this will ever happen? what would it take?
Foreign subjects should never be allowed to piss us off while we denigrate the tenets of their beliefs…….YEAH! cause we’re the man dude.
Enron, Halliburton, Worldcom, Adelphia, Warnaco, Tyco……and on and on
Matt and Trey would probably do very well without the corporate cowards. _oh yeah, now you’re talkin!
Blouise said:
“I don’t expect some Comedy Central secretary’s life, taken by a crazy Muslim because she was the only one he could reach, is worth it.”
I don’t expect Thomas Jefferson agreed with you – “The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants” Many brave men and women have given their lives for the freedoms that we enjoy and when we abandon our principles in the face of threats we cede victory to bullies and thugs. Ben Franklin said it best, “Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.”