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.
Better one have dog poop on the shoes than corporatist apologist poop on the nose, Woot.
South Park has done this before. Why such a fuss now? —
@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.
“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,
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
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.
@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).
@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
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.
“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…
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.
@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…
“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…
I don’t object to Comedy Central’s decision. Here’s why: http://innocentsmithjournal.com/2010/04/23/censoring-south-park/
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).
@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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.