'Muhammad' now a dirty word on 'South Park' by James Hibberd
Now "South Park" can't even say the words "Prophet Muhammad."
After last week's episode of the Comedy Central series sparked a threat (and yes, it was certainly a threat) from a radical Islamic website, the network has cracked-down-for-their-own-good on creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone during last night's continuation of the show's storyline.
For those who missed the drama, the show's 200th episode mocked the one "celebrity" that the show has been largely unable to depict, the Prophet Muhammad, who was hidden from view in a bear costume. A website then warned Parker and Stone they could end up like Theo Van Gogh (the Dutch filmmaker who was murdered by Muslim extremists after depicting Muhammad on his show) and even posted the address of the show's production office.
Last night's episode continued the controversial Muhammad storyline, but with a key difference: every instance of the words "Prophet Muhammad" were bleeped out, making the episode practically incomprehensible, especially to anybody who missed the previous week.
A Comedy Central spokesperson confirmed it was the network's decision to censor the words, not the creators.
The content is also not available on the South Park Studios website.
When I heard "Muhammad" was bleeped I went to the closed-captioning. For most of the first segment they had the name spelled out while after that they had "beep" written out.
Also, the midnight repeat was 1402 "The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs" instead of the 10pm episode as it usually is.
I wouldn't blame M&T if they pulled the plug on the show and walked away from CC forever. CC has no balls whatsoever. You let bullies push you around and they'll keep pushing harder and harder.
That answers my question. When I heard about the bear costume, I wondered whether his face was visible, or he was entirely covered. "Hidden from view" tells me it was the latter.
So let me get this straight: showing a fake bear and saying that Muhammed is inside the costume is considered by some people to be a "depiction" of Muhammed??? Yikes...
The real "yikes" is that a major American media outlet is letting a bunch of barbarians dictate to them what they can and cannot say or depict. There shouldn't have even been any need for a bear costume in the first place.
At some point, accountants and lawyers step in. There is a risk that some nutcase with a car bomb is going to drive through the front of the Comedy Central's headquarters and kill a bunch of people. Then, the families of those victims sue the network for allowing/causing the deaths.
Being 'chicken' and editing out the Muslim content from South Park may not be the 'right' thing to do, but it probably is the smarter thing to do.
So basically they have neither spine nor principles.
Just one more step on our way toward dhimmitude, I guess. At least no one will get sued!
[Oh, and such a lawsuit would be so ridiculous on its face, it wouldn't even likely stand a summary judgment challenge, so even crunching the numbers, it wouldn't be all that expensive for CC to show some sack and tell these bastards to go fuck themselves.]
Only if you define cowardice in the face of what is essentially evil as "smart".
They had enough spine to air last week's episode in the first place. It wasn't until real threats were made that they pulled back.
So it's worth risking people's lives to air a cartoon?
It's not like they're bluffing, and CC should have called their bluff. Muslim extremists have killed people over similar actions, so there's a real danger here. Does CC management really have the right to make that kind of decision on behalf of all their employees? They're not soldiers or cops, they don't expect their jobs to be dangerous.
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 23:05:11 -0400, Barry Margolin wrote:
Then they need to stop advertising this season as having the biggest balls ever, because they just shot up a truckload of 'roids and their balls have now shriveled up into raisins.
Those ads have nothing to do with this episode, they were about the episode a few weeks ago where the men gave themselves cancer, and their testicles exploded to the size of beachballs.
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 23:34:51 -0400, Barry Margolin wrote:
While that was the reference, it wasn't the implication. They've (CC) touted the show as being edgy and that no one is off limits, but we know now that isn't true at all.
I know, I was trying to have fun by making the obvious excuse.
The ultimate problem is that TV networks are businesses, and you can't count on them to be as edgy as the creative people. It's easy to tout yourself as pushing boundaries until someone pushes back, and then compromises end up being made. A TV commercial saying "we have the biggest balls" is not an open-ended guarantee, it's just a marketing tool.
Good point. The show still made fun of Muslims and Muhammed, perhaps even more so because of the bleeping. Do Muslims really not mind ridiculing Muhammed, as long as you don't *depict* him when you're doing it?
When I watched the episode last night, I assumed that the long bleeps were part of the satire. It wasn't until these threads that I realized that they weren't intentional.
No, it's worth risking people's lives to thwart the ability of a bunch of psychopathic barbarians to dictate our culture to us.
You seem to have already abdicated one of the fundamentals freedoms enjoyed by the citizens of this nation to these religious nutbags. Free speech be damned if someone threatens to hurt you for exercising it, huh?
Where does it end? When would you say enough is enough and tell them to fuck off? Today they're telling the United States of America, "You're prohibited from depicting Mohammed because we say so." What if tomorrow they started threaten to kill people who make movies that depict sex in a manner contrary to the teachings of the Q'uran? Should the networks and movie studios also cave to that because the "danger is real"? And if they then followed up with, "We don't like to see women on TV unless they adhere to Islamic standards of dress." Do we put all our actresses in burqas because a bunch of cave-dwelling throwbacks told us to, under threat of violence.
How much do you let them dictate our lives, culture, and freedom to us before you say enough? Or do you ever say it? Do you just continue to capitulate in the name of "safety"?
Yep. They can inform their employees of the situation and their decision and let those employees make their own decisions about their safety and the risks they're willing to take.
Ultimately, if some Muslim wack-job does something violent both the legal and moral responsibility lies with the wack-job. We thankfully haven't reached the point yet where the victim of extortion bears culpability for not surrendering their freedoms to the extorters.
Which brings me back to their lack of spine. Any media outlet, even a comedy channel, that's willing to give up the fundamental freedom which is the lifeblood of its industry merely because they might be sued has no business being in that industry in the first place.
And as I said elsewhere in the thread, any lawsuit trying to hold CC responsible for the violent actions of others merely because they declined to be blackmailed into giving up one of their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms wouldn't survive summary judgment. It wouldn't even be expensive to defend such a suit, let alone win it.
These 'media outlets' regularly give up their 'fundamental freedom' for much less. How is this different than when the idiot rightwingers put together a sponsor boycott against advertisers and cause programs to alter their content? You think that Comedy Central should risk the lives of their innovent employees, but that it is less spineless for them to fold if the PTC threatens to tell people to stop buying soap from an advertiser?
You are picking a really poor fight here. if you want to 'show some balls' and 'defend your right to free speech', go out there and do it yourself. Dress up as Muhammed and dance around like an idiot in front of one of these extremist Mosque's on the terror watch list. Stop asking the secretaries, accountants, and security guards working for Comedy Central to risk their lives to defend some vaguely a co-worker's right to draw an offensive cartoon.
Did you all see Jon Stewart's take on this last night? He expressed his indignation where it really belongs: at the Muslim extremists who made the threats in the first place. The threat didn't come from a desert in the Middle East, it came from a group that operates out of NYC. They're living here, taking advantage of our freedoms, and then throwing stones at us for exercising those freedoms.
CC is a business first, an artistic endeavor second (if even that high), so making political statements will necessarily come second to business and personnel interests. There have to be limits to the size of their balls.
It's not, except that there are threats of violence involved here. Boycotts are legal. Threatening to kill people is not.
I know you think you've somehow engineered a "gotcha" moment here by bringing in "right-wingers" but you've made some assumptions about me that will sadly result in dashed expectations on your part.
Where exactly did I say that?
Or is this just another one of your "innocent questions" that has no implications as to what you assume to be my position?
How do you know I don't? I certainly don't go around censoring myself based on the dictates of Islam out of fear of being attacked by one of these vicious animals.
Do you?
I'm not asking them anything. I'm suggesting Comedy Central should ask that of them. No one's forcing them to work there. If the job is too dangerous, they can find another one.
Of course I noticed you never addressed the broader implications of this. If you believe it's both moral and makes good business sense to cave to the demands of these religious nutjobs over the depiction of Muhammed, would also suggest they cave if the next demand is no sex at all in movies or TV? Or a demand that women only appear completely covered? When does it stop becoming good business sense? Or does it ever stop for you? Maybe you believe the TV networks and movie studios should do whatever these lunatics demand?
Nope. Show me one instance in American law where the victim of extortion or blackmail was held criminally or civilly liable for refusing to give in to that extortion or blackmail.
If the authorities felt that they could get a conviction over these 'threats', arrests would be made and you know it.
You always deny being a 'right winger' and your denials are always very weak. Never the less, the 'gotcha' moment here had nothing to do with politics. it has to do with media outlets fairly regularly altering programs for simple threats to boycott sponsors products...and yet you think it is unreasonable to alter programming when people's lives are at stake. It is unbelievably misguided of you to claim that Comedy Central lacks balls or smarts or whatnot over this issue when all they are trying to do is keep their people safe and their programming viable.
You have made it quite clear that you think that Comedy Central is wrong to 'censor' the cartoon even though their reasons for doing so are life and death.
I assume your position is just right of the far right fringe...as it usually is. If you don't think Comedy Central is 'spineless' or that they are acting like 'cowards', then feel free to explain your comments more clearly.
If you were dressed as Muhammed and dancing around in front of a radical mosque, I would have seen you (or your corpse) on the news.
I bet your employer would 'censor' you in such a way that you couldn't do that Muhammed dance in front of the radical mosque while on company time. That is the issue here. The company (Comedy Central) is fully within its rights to 'censor' a couple of their employees in this manner if they choose...and do so because they believe it will benefit the majority of people depending on them for a paycheck..
I worry about both the Muslim radicals and the 'they can pry my gun from my cold dead hand' crowd since both are great threats to the American way of life.
You think employees of Comedy Central should have to quit their jobs because a couple of idiots at the company are turning it into a dangerous workplace? That is an assinine solution and would be quite irresponsible of Comedy Central to ask it of hundreds of employees. These people go to work to earn a decent living, not for the thrill of risking their lives daily.
Quite frankly, I don't care if it is 'moral' to value people's lives more than a 'freedom talking point'. It is good business and it is what any intelligent employer would do. Does it mean that the bad guys win in this instance...sure...but there are much bigger/better stances to take in defense of your freedom/life that whether or not a cartoon is allowed to makes jokes about a religious leader. If you don't like that the network 'caved', vote with your dollar and stop watching the show.
They regularly 'cave' to all kinds of lunatics, so why should this particular group of lunatics be any different?
That's the problem: Caving in to lunatics and whiny special interest groups. They're a greater threat to free speech than anything the government can do.
No, I deny being a Republican. Your problem is that there's as many different definition for "right-wingers" on Usenet as there are people posting to it.
And where have I said I support that again?
Yes, I do.
So basically whenever anyone uses threats of violence to extort something from someone else, the victim of the extortion should just capitulate.
That about sum it up?
Maybe you should change your screen name to Frenchy and be done with it.
Yeah, you conveniently left off the second half of your original question, which is what I was referring to.
Let me be more specific so you can't evade it this time: Where exactly did I say "that it is less spineless for them to fold if the PTC threatens to tell people to stop buying soap from an advertiser?"
Well, you know what they say about assumptions. Too bad you haven't learned that lesson despite having it repeatedly taught to you.
So according to you, the only way to defend one's free speech rights against radical Muslims is to dance in front of a mosque?
You're very bizarre, you know that?
The sad thing, however, is that you seem peculiarly resigned and unconcerned about the fact that there are apparently mosques full of people in this country who will kill people for doing something as innocuous as dancing and nothing is being done about it.
That makes no sense. You seem to be equating an employer's requirement that employees be productive and do the work they're being paid to do with censorship.
It's not even a valid analogy in this case because Parker and Stone weren't fucking off at work in order to offend Muslims. They were doing the job they were being paid to do-- create a hit show for the network which would make them lots of money.
I've said it several times in this thread already. I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time comprehending it: No one is suggesting that Comedy Central has no right to do what they're doing or that the South Park guys have a valid legal case to force them to stop. Of course they CAN do it. It's not about what they CAN do. It's about what they SHOULD do.
Once again you evaded the question. Do you go around censoring yourself based on the dictates of Islam out of fear of violent reprisals?
Ho. Ly. Shit.
It's truly amazing that people like you will blame Comedy Central for "turning it into a dangerous workplace" and not the people who, you know, are ACTUALLY DOING THE POTENTIAL KILLING AND BOMBING.
If someone told you they would hunt down and kill your family if you didn't turn over the contents of your bank accounts to them and you refused, would it be your fault or theirs if they carried through with their threat?
Citizens have a moral obligation to fight for their culture and society against those who would try and destroy it. The whole reason they can earn a decent living in the first place is because of what their society guarantees as fundamental freedoms.
And it looks like you're going to continue to evade those broader implications. I'm sure everyone reading this thread can guess why.
What is it with you (and so many others on Usenet) who seem to have this view of the world? "Well, [insert something bad] has happened before so there's no reason we should object to it happening again."
Who do you think is going to issue the arrest warrant...or are you expecting joe-policeman to simply start arresting people based upon his own initiative?
Why is that *my* problem? Do I need to take special note of those that are to the right of the rightmost Republicans?
No one said you did.
You wany someone esle to risk their life for a cartoon, yet you don't step up and do the same. Be a man about it. Stop asking the accountants at Comedy Central to riskk their lives for you. Dress up as Muhammed yourself and taunt these people until they snap. Then, you can get the 'justice' you seek.
It sums it up if you are extremely simple minded. I believe what I said was to be more thoughtful in which battles you fight.
Suddenly, I want to give you a big wet kiss.
In this case...that they are perfectly valid for the purposes of this discussion.
I've seen you participate in many threads. Your belief that you are teaching people is quite misguided.
Not the only way...but a much better way than to demand that Comedy Central's secretaries and accountants do it for you.
Dress up in drag and stand out in front of the redneck bars calling them queers. See how it works for you. Dress up like Christ on the cross and perform sex acts on a blowup doll in front of a Christian church and see how it works for you. Dress up in black face and tell racist jokes while walking through Philly's inner city and see how it works out for you.
There are lots and lots of people all over America just waiting to snap if they are prevoked. If we got rid of all of them, you would be gone as well.
Comedy Central is asking their cartoonists to be productive and do the work they are being paid to do...yet Comedy Central is being called out for 'censorship' as well. It is there network. They get to choose what airs. It is their goal to be profitable. It is up to them to decide what will lead to profits.
Sure they were. They can decide what they think is funny or edgy or whatever, but their employer does not have to agree. Moreover, the emoployer's 'job' is to make money, not to air funny, so it doesn't even matter if they think that it is funny.
Unless people die...including the show's creators which would certainly not result in money-making going foreward.
They SHOULD do what is best for the company. Commedy Central has no responsibility to fight for you. I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time comprehending it.
I have no need to censor myself since I have no need to confront them and shout down the dictates of Islam. Again, if you have that need, do it yourself.
You are such a tool. No one has suggested that the threat makers are right. The 'right or wrong' of the threat has nothing to do with whether or not Comedy Central should risk their employees' lives over it.
You ought to write up your manifesto before you plow your plane into the local IRS building.
I, as a citizen, am fighting for my culture and society...against a threat more dangerous that the Muslim extremists...the mentaility of folks like you that want to go to war (well, want Comedy Central accountants and secretaries to do it for you) at any cost.
The broader implications are fine for a philosophical discussion, but not relevant to the course of action that Comedy Central should be taking....and is taking...which is too try and defuse the situation rather than throwing gasoline on it.
Because it most definitely is about picking one's battles. try turning the other cheek and walking away once in awhile...or, if a fight *must* be had, do it your own damn self instead of demanding that others do it for you.
What does arresting people have to do with this issue?
Because you're the one who keeps trying to apply such idiotic labels as a way of undermining those with whom you disagree.
Just out of curiosity, what exactly have I said that's supposedly so fringe and "to the right of the rightmost Republicans"?
I mean, I'm an atheist and have been vocal in this newsgroup and others in opposing the Christian religious agenda of the Republicans. Last I checked, that's hardly a "fringe-right" belief.
I'm pro-choice. Hardly a "fringe right" position.
I'm aggressively in favor free speech (as is evident in this very thread) and oppose nearly all government attempts to restrict it. When the Republicans were hell-bent on amending the Constitution to ban flag-burning, I argued against it. Not sure how that puts me on the "fringe right". And I'm usually in agreement with the ACLU on most free speech legal challenges. Not exactly "to the right of the rightmost Republicans", there, huh?
So how about it, bright eyes? Put your money where your mouth is.
Well, if I don't support it and you don't support it, why the hell are you going on about it? We're apparently in agreement on this point.
As much as they would be, yes I do.
What did I say above that was inaccurate?
All evidence to the contrary.
I didn't say I was teaching you. That's just your comprehension problem rearing it's ugly head again.
I said you've been repeatedly taught that lesson, yet refuse to learn from it.
Yet you seem oddly fixated on it.
Ah, so now I'm just waiting to snap, too, am I?
I disagree with you so you imply I'm on a hair-trigger to violence, no different than the Muslim psychopaths making these threats.
You're a hoot, that's what you are.
Yes, so you keep saying as if anyone has suggested otherwise.
Either pony up an instance where that's happened or give it a rest.
Not if what's best for the company isn't what's best for American society. There is a higher duty to which even corporations should adhere.
And caving to Muslim extremist demands for censorship isn't what's best for the company, either. The way you keep avoiding addressing the broader implications of their actions pretty much tells me you realize that as well. You just don't want to admit it.
Irrelevant. There's almost certainly things you do and do not do in your daily life that run afoul of Islam's dictates. Do you school yourself in the Q'uran, the hadith and shari'a in order make sure your behavior conforms to their dictates? If a Muslim confronted you for not praying to Allah five times a day, for example, and threatened you with violence unless you do so, would you comply?
LOL! Quite a compliment coming from you.
Didn't say you did. I'm not sure if you purposely misunderstand what's said to you or whether you really don't comprehend what you read. I said you suggested the company is making the workplace dangerous, rather than the threat-makers.
And there it is. According to you, I'm now a potential terrorist myself for suggesting we shouldn't capitulate to terrorists.
Well done. You just zeroed-out whatever credibility you had left.
Well, I guess we all know how to make you capitulate and give up that fight, huh? All someone has to do is threaten you and you'll turn tail and run.
And a practical one as well. One which you're not willing to have and we all know why.
If a mugger says, "Your money or your life", give him the money.
Actually, I'll refine that. If he says, "Your money or your life", you can do what you want. But if he says, "Your money or your girlfriend's life", give him the money.
What good is a glockenspiel during a mugging? And why on Earth would you be carrying one around in the first place? Just to be ready in case you bump into someone who might say "boy, I sure wish I could listen to some xylophone music right about now"? I think that's highly unlikely to happen. You should switch to a kazoo. Everyone likes the kazoo, and they're much lighter than a glockenspiel.
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 18:43:07 -0400, Captain Infinity wrote:
Is that a joke or are you really that clueless? When someone threatens your life. you have to presume they're willing carry out that threat.
CWP. I carry it everywhere it's permitted by law.
Is that what armed robbers say these days?
Yes, I hope it is highly unlikely, but no one can guarantee it will never happen. That's why I carry. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.
Only if the bad guys are only armed with kazoos, too.
Yes, of *course* they are, I know that. However, it is far, *far* less likely that SP Fan will run into a mugger that says "I sure wish I could listen to some glockenspiel music right about now" than it is he will run into one that says "I sure wish I could listen to some xylophone music right about now". Just more evidence that SP Fan is a moron for carrying a glockenspiel around with him all the time.
What if you just get a note in the mail that says, "You have one month to liquidate all your assets. Sell your home, your vehicles, your stocks, empty your bank accounts and transfer your entire net worth to the following numbered off-shore account...
Failure to do so will result in the death of one friend or family member a week until you comply.
Contacting the police or any other law enforcement or intelligence agency will result in the death of every member of your immediate family."
Only because you've heard Jack McCoy constantly misuse it.
There's absolutely no case law, statute, code or ordinance that would make Comedy Central guilty of 2nd degree murder or even manslaughter (which is where 'depraved indifference' comes in) for declining to be victimized by Muslim radicals.
We were talking about CC being sued civilly by the families of employees. That was far-fetched enough. But the idea that the government could hold people *criminally* responsible for not capitulating to threats and extortion is so far out there it's crazy.
Far fetched? So, when a plane gets blown up the families of those that died could not possibly sue the airline because the airline failed to take adequate precautions to prevent the deaths? It sort of boggles the mind that you think Comedy Central could not be sued by employee families if one of their buildings full of employees got blown up after they decided to keep taunting Muslim radicals with cartoon insults.
There's a significant legal difference between not taking adequate security precautions and not capitulating to threats and extortion.
People can be sued by anyone for anything. Of course CC could be sued. The lawsuit would just have little to no chance of success (or even making it passed the summary judgment stage).
If someone makes a credible threat "We're going to bomb your offices if you do X", and you do X, that seems reckless.
And if that recklessness results in deaths, a judge might be willing to listen to arguments.
I suppose they could have responded by airing the episode and increasing security of the building, to try to mitigate the threat. But if they were unsuccessful in thwarting the bombers, that would be incredibly sad. The increased security might also protect them some more from lawsuits, but there would still be dead employees.
I'm sure their families would be happy to know that they were martyrs to artistic freedom.
Very few people in America would say that South Park is 'our culture' except perhaps within the phrase 'South Park is an unfortunate result of our culture'....kinda like dog fighting videos.
...but again, the issue isn't about Comedy Central denying these cartoonists the ability for 'free speech' (which as you have pointed out numerous times in the past does not apply to private companies controlling what their eployees are allowed to say). If the cartoonists want to take a stand, they can set up a website and create some new poorly drawn characters to spout off against Muslim beliefs. For Comedy Central, the issue is about protecting their financial investment and their employees lives...a far more worthy/legitimate reason to 'give in' than when they give in to groups setting up sponsor boycotts.
Whether one likes the show or not (and since it's been a hit for over a decade and still going strong, I'd dispute your characterization of it) hardly determines whether it's part of the culture or not.
Nevertheless, the individual show is irrelevant. Today it's South Park, tomorrow it's something else. One of these days they're bound to hit something that *is* part of the culture.
Only in a legalistic sense. Certainly CC can censor the show all they want. Not once in this thread have I suggested that Parker and Stone have a valid 1st Amendment censorship cause of action against CC. It's not about what they *can* do, but rather what they *should* do. Free speech isn't just a legal term of art. What I (and several others) are saying is that when given the choice to back the freedoms of their talent or cave to a group of bloodthirsty psychopaths, perhaps the former would be the more morally righteous group to pick.
Neither one is worthy at all. All you're saying is that "if you don't like what we're doing, just threaten to bomb us or kill our people and we'll do whatever you say right quick. You're calling the shots. Not us."
You might as well just hand them the keys to the building and call it a day.
The show has a few million viewers out of the hundreds of millions of people in the USA. it is not representative of US culture.
Same goes for dog fighting videos, as I stated.
So then, I am glad to see that you acknowledge that no 'censorship' exists here.
What they *should* do is keep people from dying and keep this macho posing from getting any more out of control to where it costs the company lots of money. What they *should not* do is make this a line in the sand that they are all willing to die over.
...and yet you don't have the balls to dress up as Muhammed and take to the streets in front of the radical mosque. As such, you really have no business asking others to do the same for you even when they don't believe in your 'cause'.
The fact that you think people's lives are not worthy of protection is mind boggling.
If that's how you judge it, then hardly any individual piece of art would be considered representative. The closest would be the Super Bowl, or in the case of regular TV, American Idol. Is that American culture?
Others may prefer to use other measures than popularity. There are some American values that have been part of our culture for centuries. We can then judge things based on how they match those values. Shows like South Park and The Daily Show demonstrate how our society allows for, and even encourages, open dialogue.
It's the old "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" philosophy. Many people who don't actually enjoy watching South Park may still feel that it embodies the freedoms we enjoy, and is a good representation of what American culture is about.
Well, for the most part I don't think an 'individual piece of art' does represent American culture.
We could always look at the converse situation. What number of people in America would actively complain if forced to watch a show? I think the numbe rof complainers would be quite a bit higher for South Park than for the Super Bowl. In fact, I think the number of complainers would be higher for South Park than for almost any other show on TV. No, it is not fair to say that South Park is representative of American Culture.
Agreed.
I agree, but I still feel that asking others (random secretaries and accountants working at Comedy Central) to die for that 'freedom' is rediculous. The network is still a business and its duties are to its employers, stockholder, and even viewers...not to the 'greater good of dying rather than giving in to 'animals''.
So what *is* representative of US culture then? Your criteria seems to eliminate almost every TV show, movie, painting, book, magazine and piece of music.
So why don't you tell us what qualifies? And while you're at it, cite the source of that authority.
Certainly no legal censorship exists. I never claimed or implied otherwise.
You're tilting at a strawman here.
Which of course I never said. People's lives are certainly worthy of protection. Just not by giving in to threats and extortion.
Watching TV is representative of American culture. Watching a particular TV show is not. Going to the movies is representative of American Culture. Going to see a particular movie is not. Listening to music is representastive of American culture. Listening to a particular song is not.
The only authority I need for my opinion is me.
Nice to see you admit and agree that no censorship exists here.
No. You are. You are the one claiming that Comedy Central has some duty to uphold your person version of American values even against their own best interest and even if it costs them their lives.
I listed two things as worthy and one of them was 'their employees lives'. You responded with 'Neither one is worthy at all'. What did you mean, exactly, if you weren't suggesting that giving in inorder to save lives was an unworthy decision?
See, you prove my point. You think the stupid cartoon character's are worth dying over...or more specifically, you think the stupid cartoon characters are worth someone else (Comedy Central's secretaries and accountants) dying over. Be a man, go die for the 'cause' yourself rather than asking them to do it for you.
Seems pretty non-sensical. When people talk about the culture of 18th century Austria, they discuss the symphonies of Mozart. Not the general trend of the people of the time to listen to orchestras play music.
But as you yourself noted below, there's nothing factual whatsoever about your claims as to what does and does not constitute American culture, so your assertion that South Park isn't part of it isn't really worthy of further discussion.
So basically it's no authority at all.
Certainly no legal censorship exists. I never claimed or implied otherwise.
How is that a strawman? You don't seem to be using that term in the same way as the rest of the English-speaking world.
Just what I said below.
You seem to have seized on the animated nature of this show in some misguided attempt to bolster your argument, as if the moral issues involved are somehow different because of it.
You apparently have a complete inability to discern the higher principles at play here.
The irony is that every time you try this faux macho goading bullshit, you turn yourself into more of stupid cartoon than you were before.
But in any event, the nature of the job I do every day makes me an automatic target for these Islamic crazies. I don't have to go "dance in front of a mosque" (or whatever silly shit you've come up with now) in order to piss them off. They've already targeted law enforcement at all levels of American government, especially those at the federal level.
So you see, I'm not asking anyone to do anything I'm not already doing myself.
It's not about the cartoon. It's about freedom of expression, just as it has always been. We have that in this country. The jihadists are against it. That's fine, except that they do more than get upset. They actually do the death threats and sometimes carry them out. At that point, they need to spend some time in jail bent over with Bubba. Or dead.
For you to trivialize this as you have is disgusting.
If you call it a lack of principles to care more about your employees lives than you do about defending someone's right to make a joke, then I guess you have a point.
If Comedy Central continued to air the lowball humor in an attempt to defend the rights of a couple of cartoonists and it resulted in the deaths of dozens of innocent employees working for the company, a lawsuit by those employees' families against the unsafe workplace conditions that the company 'promoted' would most definitely have traction.
Yes, I consider it 'smart' to care more about people's lives than about a joke in a cartoon.
What I want to know is, why did Comedy Central cave to the Islamic nitwits, when they stood up to the Christian nitwits? They've been showing Jesus as a talk-show host for years.
Because they know the worst the Christian nitwits will do is sign petitions or, at worst, picket their offices.
Just like the New York Times, Washington Post, and most of the other big papers and network news bureaus, who were all big believers in free speech and routinely thumped their collective chests about their principles and the "public's right to know"... until there were actually some potential consequences for it, then they ran like a scalded cat.
The irony is that a big part of last week's plot was the boys trying to figure out how to get Muhammed out of the building without incurring the wrath of Muslims. Putting him in a bear costume and driving him in a windowless van was their solution.
And in one of the earlier seasons (2002 or so, the Super Best Friends episode) they showed Mohammad and there was no outrage whatsoever about it. Of course, CC doesn't show rerun episode anymore.
I think Muhammad was also shown in the crowd of characters at the end of the opening credits, but that has been edited out too, and now you cannot say the word Mohammad without offending somebody. I guess Mohammad Ali cannot have his full name said on TV anymore either.
You bring up an interesting point. Since so many Muslim males are named Mohammad, maybe we should start censoring their names in news reports, just to drive the point home.
"The New York Times is reporting that M******* Ali's Parkinson's Disease has worsened."
Tell me all about some christian mobs going out on a vandoulous rampage after some comics are published. Tell us about artists who are murdered for depicting jesus in an unflatoring manner.
Name some please. Otherwise we'll know you're full of shit.
So here's clouddipshit's response to her Muslime terrorist heroes threatening the lives of American citizens. Just in case any of you were wondering how the fat fuck was going to play this :)
Obviously you're only prohibited from saying the name when referring to the prophet Muhammed, not when saying the name of other people with the name. Similarly, Christianity prohibits taking Jesus's name in vain, but it's still common in the Hispanic community to name boys after him.
Christians don't threaten violence to offenders of this commandment. And it's mostly invoked for the name God, not as much for Jesus; many TV networks will bleep out God in "God damn it".
I always find it amusing that those who like to paint themselves as so "brave" and "controversial" when they create "art" that denigrates other religions like Christianity or Judaism will suddenly run like whipped dogs with their tails between their legs when challenged by radical Islam.
Yeah, it's so brave to mock Christians who you know won't actually do anything to you. You're really making a courageous stand for the 1st Amendment when you do or say something you know won't get you into any real trouble. But the moment some actual danger looms on the horizon, these free-speech patriots cower and capitulate.
None of the American newspapers would reprint those Danish cartoons, despite their "vaunted" history of standing up for free speech and free press and now Comedy Central is following in their cowardly footsteps.