News What Are the Limits of Satire and Free Speech?

[aquitaine]

South Park was censored because of a muslim death threat

They have depicted the Queen blowing her brains out after a failed attempt by the British army to reinvade America, Saddam Hussein as Satan's gay lover, and Jesus as a trigger-happy superhero. Mormons, Scientologists, Catholics, Jews, politicians and film stars have all been skewered on the razor-sharp wit of South Park.

Now the caustic animated satire appears to have reached its limits within the confines of mainstream US television. Fans and pundits alike were taken aback last night when an episode featuring the prophet Muhammad purportedly dressed in a bear costume had bleeps and "Censored" blocks slapped liberally throughout to remove all audio and visual reference to the prophet.

Granted this happened a week ago, but I don't watch south park and don't pay a lot of attention to a lot of the media so I just now found out about it. It made me wonder not only why we tolerate this kind of BS (the group that made the threat was based in New York btw) but why the hell should we be afraid of them? Air the episode uncensored, otherwise the terrorists have won. This is yet another example of what happens when we tolerate backwards thinking.

 

[DaveC426913]

Air the episode uncensored, otherwise the terrorists have won.

You give them too much power.

Consider we pulled it off the air for no other reason than because it was in particularly bad taste and hateful, not because someone made a threat. Note that muhammed-followers and terrorists are not synonymous.

You want to defy terrorism? Act righteously, regardless of their actions.

 

[cronxeh]

Well I think if they made a threat via email or phone call, then it is a felony harassment and they should be charged, tried, convicted, and sodomized at a later time in jail. As for South Park, the creators should just leave Comedy Central, since Comedy Central is really nothing without South Park and Tonight Show/ Colbert Report. Every one of their other shows sucks. South park should just release their episodes on the web and drive in revenue via DVD sales, or move to Adult Swim.

No gate keepers should be allowed to censor free speech in any shape. Furthermore, these gatekeepers should be punished either by the existing legal system, or in the future by exclusion from any employment opportunities, since they don't respect one of the rights, they don't necessarily deserve a right to not be discriminated against. Think of it this way. If a child commits a serious crime, we try him as an adult. Why should the same rights apply to people who take them away from others? They shouldn't.

 

[aquitaine]

You give them too much power.

Consider we pulled it off the air for no other reason than because it was in particularly bad taste and hateful, not because someone made a threat. Note that muhammed-followers and terrorists are not synonymous.

You want to defy terrorism? Act righteously, regardless of their actions.

If you don't like it, don't watch it. As I said, I don't watch it. I choose not to because I find most of it's humor to be too "crude" for my tastes. But how is having Muhammed in a bear costume hateful?

 

[DaveC426913]

But how is having Muhammed in a bear costume hateful?

This is an overly-simplistic argument. No one said the simple fact of Mohammed in a bear costume in-and-of-itself is hateful.

That being said, they are mocking figures revered by millions or billions. It would be the same if they mocked the Pope.

 

[aquitaine]

This is an overly-simplistic argument. No one said the simple fact of Mohammed in a bear costume in-and-of-itself is hateful.

That being said, they are mocking figures revered by millions or billions. It would be the same if they mocked the Pope.

actually yeah, you did say it was hateful. You said the episode was hateful, and the bear costume was what they had problems with.


And why exactly should any of that be off limits? Because people are so irrational and blindly devoted to superstitious nonsense?

 

[cronxeh]

This is an overly-simplistic argument. No one said the simple fact of Mohammed in a bear costume in-and-of-itself is hateful.

That being said, they are mocking figures revered by millions or billions. It would be the same if they mocked the Pope.

Yes but this country is not for people who think they can censor others. It is made because of people like that. Blood was spilled to preserve this opportunity to say whatever you want. These censor terrorists should be deported, is all I'm saying. With extreme prejudice.

 

[DaveC426913]

actually yeah, you did say it was hateful. You said the episode was hateful, and the bear costume was what they had problems with.

That's your simplistic interpretation. There was a little more to the ep than just Mohammed posing in a bear costume.

And why exactly should any of that be off limits? Because people are so irrational and blindly devoted to superstitious nonsense?

That is a straw man argument. Next.

 

[cronxeh]

Lets just clarify that DaveC is a Canadian and is technically under Her Majesty Queen's domain

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes but this country is not for people who think they can censor others.

Again, I put to you that the ep was censored, not because of terrorist demands, but because the airers realized it was in particularly bad taste.

I am pretty sure South Park has not used cross-burning or child molestation as sources of humour.

 

[Jack21222]

This is an overly-simplistic argument. No one said the simple fact of Mohammed in a bear costume in-and-of-itself is hateful.

That being said, they are mocking figures revered by millions or billions. It would be the same if they mocked the Pope.

Mock the pope? You mean like this?

Is that hateful? I just think it's amusing. There is nothing "hateful" about mocking figures revered by millions or billions.

 

[Jack21222]

I am pretty sure South Park has not used cross-burning or child molestation as sources of humour.

I'm about 75% certain they have.

 

[cronxeh]

I am pretty sure South Park has not used cross-burning or child molestation as sources of humour.

Do you even know what you are talking about? Next.

 

[DaveC426913]

Lets just clarify that DaveC is a Canadian and is technically under Her Majesty Queen's domain

Address the argument, not the arguer.

 

[DaveC426913]

Do you even know what you are talking about?

I do. Are you refuting my claim?

 

[cronxeh]

I do. Are you refuting my claim?

Yes they have. The child molestation in almost every other episode this season, and as for cross burning, or KKK, or just plain making fun of blacks and racism and stereotypes, its been done numerous times, to a hilarious reception.

 

[DaveC426913]

Mock the pope? You mean like this?

Is that hateful?

No. So?

I just think it's amusing. There is nothing "hateful" about mocking figures revered by millions or billions.

It depends on the mocking. That's on a case-by-case call.

I am not suggesting just any lampooning is hateful. Some simply crosses the line.

I'm about 75% certain they have.

Again, there is mocking and there is mocking. Family Guy addresses sexual predation; it just keeps it on the side of the line that doesn't cause outrage.

It would be quite possible to do an ep that glorified sexual predation; that would probably cross a line.

Do you even know what you are talking about? Next.

If you're going to try to be witty in a discussion, simply parroting some else's wittiness without the substance is not the way to it.

 

[Jack21222]

Attempting to show Mohammed in a bear suit doesn't even come CLOSE to glorifying child sex abuse. The picture I posted of the pope is FAR more offensive than that south park episode.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sorry. Time out.

I can't believe I have been entertaining a serious discussion wherein the OP actually uses the phrase "the terrorists have won!" - and does so with a perfectly straight face.

Where I come from, that particular phrase is used to mock the knee-jerk insanity of people who think we have to do stupid stuff to keep the terrorists at bay.

"If you don't fly to Europe anymore the terrorists have won!"
"If you don't buy this puppy the terrorists have won!"
"If you don't air this show the terrorists have won!"

It was funny until it wasn't funny anymore. I bought the T-shirt and now it's been cut up for rags.


Sorry guys. Carry on without me.

 

[russ_watters]

South Park was censored because of a muslim death threat

Air the episode uncensored, otherwise the terrorists have won. This is yet another example of what happens when we tolerate backwards thinking.

I was shocked and saddened that they censored the episode. This is South Park we're talking about! Is nothing sacred? If they can't do satire, who can?

 

[rootX]

I was shocked and saddened that they censored the episode. This is South Park we're talking about! Is nothing sacred? If they can't do satire, who can?

I think terrorists posted their home addresses. I was also disappointed but it is understandable decision. Risk is too big while they don't lose much for censoring one episode.

 

[russ_watters]

You give them too much power.

Consider we pulled it off the air for no other reason than because it was in particularly bad taste and hateful, not because someone made a threat. Note that muhammed-followers and terrorists are not synonymous.

Dave, it was censored because of the threat, not because it was in bad taste: because it wasn't in bad taste*. Read the episode synopsys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/201_(South_Park )

It is despicable and shameful that we've come to this.

*And since when is being in bad taste an acceptable reason for censorship anyway? Heck, the episode was about free speech and it was censored. That's a clear victory for the terrorists.

That being said, they are mocking figures revered by millions or billions. It would be the same if they mocked the Pope.

They do openly mock the Pope for the abuse scandal. And no, it didn't get censored.

Your position fits with neither the letter nor the spirit of freedom of speech.

Again, I put to you that the ep was censored, not because of terrorist demands, but because the airers realized it was in particularly bad taste.

Dave, no, you really don't know what you're talking about. What you are saying is simply not true. The ep was not censored for reasons of taste. No, they didn't make a statement about the censorship, but this type of censorship is completely without precedent. For a show that is built on bad taste, it is pretty obvious that taste had nothing to do with this censorship. You're fooling yourself if you believe otherwise.

 

[aquitaine]

Again, I put to you that the ep was censored, not because of terrorist demands, but because the airers realized it was in particularly bad taste.

I am pretty sure South Park has not used cross-burning or child molestation as sources of humour.

So what you're saying is that its ok for them to censor it because some muslim fundies made death threats, but not censor it for everything else? South Park is an equal opportunity offender, they go after anyone for anything. So, I'm smelling a double standard here.

 

[cronxeh]

I've attached the image of what was censored out of the episode.

I'll be in the living room now, cleaning my shotgun. If anyone wants my home address, send me a pm.

 

[mheslep]

Mock the pope? You mean like this?

Is that hateful? I just think it's amusing. There is nothing "hateful" about mocking figures revered by millions or billions.

Ah, I expected someone might throw something up like this. Actually fairly funny. Now post a similar photo mocking Mohammed - clearly identifiable as Mohammed - nothing meaner than this one of the Pope. Let's see how long it stays up on PF if you do.

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry. Time out.

I can't believe I have been entertaining a serious discussion wherein the OP actually uses the phrase "the terrorists have won!" - and does so with a perfectly straight face.

Where I come from, that particular phrase is used to mock the knee-jerk insanity of people who think we have to do stupid stuff to keep the terrorists at bay.

You've totally missed the point, Dave. The episode wasn't created to keep the terrorists at bay. The episode was censored because the terrorists have invaded our culture. You're looking at the issue exactly backwards.

Sorry guys. Carry on without me.

Will do, Dave - you clearly don't get either the concept of freedom of speech nor the goal of terrorsts and the point of the war on terror.

 

[russ_watters]

I think terrorists posted their home addresses. I was also disappointed but it is understandable decision. Risk is too big while they don't lose much for censoring one episode.

Comedy Central did this, not Trey and Matt. Trey and Matt did not want it to be censored. They have bigger stones and thicker backbones than that.

 

[zomgwtf]

Dave, it was censored because of the threat, not because it was in bad taste: because it wasn't in bad taste*. Read the episode synopsys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/201_(South_Park )

It is despicable and shameful that we've come to this.

*And since when is being in bad taste an acceptable reason for censorship anyway? Heck, the episode was about free speech and it was censored. That's a clear victory for the terrorists.

I completely agree. There was nothing really in 'bad taste' in this episode... this is freaking South Park we're talking about here.

Just some more background information on the incident, the owner of the website Revolution Muslim was also involved in the death of Theo van Gogh. The dutch film director that was murdered for his film about Islam? The owner was one time doing an interview I saw on TV and he said that he is all for bringing America down etc.. He claims that whenever on his website there is a 'call for action' or 'death threats' that they aren't actually threats, just 'cautionary advice' or something to that effect. (I saw the interview awhile back).

Anyway basically the same sort of thing happened to the creators of South Park (I'm pretty sure this is the second time...) and I guess that the risks of association for some people are just too high for some people. Which sort of sucks and I believe it does play into the terrorist won mentality. The majority of Muslims do NOT take the Qu'ran seriously when it says to kill these people... not that they are automatically against other muslims killing in the name of Islam. (I think that most of them actually accept the killings etc. but want no direct part in it)

If I were American right now I would be quite upset. Can't those shiny 'new' terrorism laws do something about this ****? I feel that if you want to live in THIS country then you live by OUR standards, if not then GTFO.

 

[russ_watters]

Ah, I expected someone might throw something up like this. Actually fairly funny. Now post a similar photo mocking Mohammed - clearly identifiable as Mohammed - nothing meaner than this one of the Pope. Let's see how long it stays up on PF if you do.

What reason do you have for believing PF is a place where such things would be censored? Here's a montage from the wiki on the Mohammed cartoon controversy:

 

[cronxeh]

Can't those shiny 'new' terrorism laws do something about this ****? I feel that if you want to live in THIS country then you live by OUR standards, if not then GTFO.

I live about 40 minutes away from where they are located. We could 'peaceably assemble' outside of their offices with images of Muhammed, and wait to see for their reaction. If worse comes to worse, there is going to be some real anti-terrorism work conducted right here in Manhattan.

 

[zomgwtf]

Oh and as well, revolutionmuslim.com, the website that had posted the threats and addresses was hacked after it got it. This happened awhile ago mind you, I was going to post something but I wasn't too sure if it'd be an ok discussion topic for these forums . I mean we ban discussion of global warming.

The hackers made the website direct to a different website. On the website there was a picture of Mohammad with a bomb on his head and a picture of a muslim man kissing a young boy... quite passionately I might add.

 

[zomgwtf]

I live about 40 minutes away from where they are located. We could 'peaceably assemble' outside of their offices with images of Muhammed, and wait to see for their reaction. If worse comes to worse, there is going to be some real anti-terrorism work conducted right here in Manhattan.

I would definitely be down for that only problem being I'm Canadian so I live kinda far... not really that far from New York, but I don't have a passport. .

I really hope something is done about this though.

Btw, I was talking about in the judicial system. Not the public level.

 

[mheslep]

Comedy Central did this, not Trey and Matt. Trey and Matt did not want it to be censored. They have bigger stones and thicker backbones than that.

I agree with this condemnation of CC though I'm not surprised about what they did. The NYT did much the same regarding the Mohammed cartoons some time ago. Also, I don't know that censorship is the right word here. CC is a cable network and not the public square. They have a perfect right to show or not to show what ever they want, any time they want, and we have a perfect right to condemn them for it in this case.

 

[russ_watters]

I completely agree. There was nothing really in 'bad taste' in this episode... this is freaking South Park we're talking about here.

Well...that's going a little far. to be fair, there is an awful lot in the episode that is insulting and derogatory: it's just that the target isn't Mohammed, it is a laundry list of the celebrities that they've lampooned in the past - particularly Tom Cruise. That's the purpose of the episode (while also satirizing the Mohammed censorship, while not attacking Mohammed himself).

The gist of the episode is that the celebrities are suing the town of South Park over their maltreatment over the past 8 years. Tom Cruise believes Mohammed has some special powers that make him immune to ridicule, so he holds the town hostage until they produce Mohammed so he can harvest whatever causes this magic and then can himself become immuned to ridicule. It's celebrities - and Tom Cruise in particular - that are getting slammed in this episode, Not Mohammed himself.

 

[zomgwtf]

Well...that's going a little far. to be fair, there is an awful lot in the episode that is insulting and derogatory: it's just that the target isn't Mohammed, it is a laundry list of the celebrities that they've lampooned in the past - particularly Tom Cruise. That's the purpose of the episode (while also satirizing the Mohammed censorship, while not attacking Mohammed himself).

The gist of the episode is that the celebrities are suing the town of South Park over their maltreatment over the past 8 years. Tom Cruise believes Mohammed has some special powers that make him immune to ridicule, so he holds the town hostage until they produce Mohammed so he can harvest whatever causes this magic and then can himself become immuned to ridicule. It's celebrities - and Tom Cruise in particular - that are getting slammed in this episode, Not Mohammed himself.

Oh I watched the episode. I was saying that it's not in 'bad taste' by South Park standards It's just normal...

 

[mheslep]

What reason do you have for believing PF is a place where such things would be censored?

Well, let's say I never thought for a moment that your would flinch about posting such a graphic Russ. However, to address your point, as I recall I've seen dozens of mocking graphics of various religious icons here over a couple of years, but I don't recall ever seeing one on Mohammed.

 

[mheslep]

What reason do you have for believing PF is a place where such things would be censored? Here's a montage from the wiki on the Mohammed cartoon controversy:

Interestingly, Wiki had some debate on the subject:

Prior discussion has determined that:

* Pictures of Muhammad will NOT be removed from this article
* Removal of pictures without appropriate discussion will be reverted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

edit: And

The decision to show the cartoons is the result of one of the longest discussions in Wikipedia's history, and is archived on this talk page. From a purely personal point of view, I think that the cartoons are unfunny and possibly misguided in their intentions. However, there are worse things happening in today's world than some rather lame cartoons, so it is better for people to see them and make up their own minds.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J..._cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display
Full, huge, wiki discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J...controversy/Arguments/Image-Display/Archive_1

 

[russ_watters]

Well, let's say I never thought for a moment that your would flinch about posting such a graphic Russ. However, to address your point, as I recall I've seen dozens of mocking graphics of various religious icons here over a couple of years, but I don't recall ever seeing one on Mohammed.

We have had threads on the Mohammed censorship controversy and they did include samples.

And trust me on this: while I see your point about me posting it, PF mods do not pull punches with each other. If posting it was out of line, it'll be removed, even though it was posted by a moderator.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I am not sure that I would equate these people with the jets-into-builds set but they are certainly terrorists in the same sense that neo-nazis and the KKK members who advocate violence are terrorists. And I would not say that they "won". It was really just a scrimmage and a 'victory' that is overall fairly meaningless.

As far as I have seen South Park has satirized absolutely everything. I have seen the pope in at least one episode. There have been MANY instances of jokes involving children in a sexual context. One of the main characters dressed up as Hitler and goose stepped about "sieg heiling". The same character dressed up as a "ghost"(in a white sheet) for halloween and attended a cross burning. Due to pressure from his church one of the members of the show actually left after they satirized Scientology. They have even had Muhammad in an episode "Super Best Friends" originally aired in July of 2001 which received little to no criticism.

The idea that South Park finally stepped over some apparent "line" with this latest episode is just preposterous.

 

[mheslep]

We have had threads on the Mohammed censorship controversy and they did include samples.

Ok. I looked. The ones I see in 2006 were before my PF time, but still I see no image attachments or inserts (maybe inserts didn't exist then).
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=108995
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=110112

And trust me on this: while I see your point about me posting it, PF mods do not pull punches with each other. If posting it was out of line, it'll be removed, even though it was posted by a moderator.

No doubt. But then there is nothing remotely out of line about these cartoons or the Pope pic per PF standards. The question is what happens when the maintainers of a high visibility internet website like PF start getting violent threats from a group like the ones Comedy Central received - or even suspect they might draw that kind of attention.

 

[Gokul43201]

But then there is nothing remotely out of line about these cartoons or the Pope pic per PF standards.

Well, going by the Guidelines:

Attachments & Links:
Images, material or links to images and or material whether real, satirical or implied depicting obscene, indecent, lewd, pornographic, violent, abusive, insulting, or threatening in nature are not permitted on this bulletin board. This includes Gifs or cartoons.

The way I read that, if the intent of posting an image or cartoon is to insult, then it would be considered a violation of the Guidelines. However, in this case, both images (Pope with lightning and text, as well Mohammed cartoon controversy page) were posted in the context of the debate on censorship, rather than purely to inflame or insult anyone.

Furthermore, I think this Guideline is in for the purpose of catching bad actors rather than to censor mocking of public figures, which I don't think is, by itself, such a terrible thing (especially when done for humor).

 

[Evo]

This is an overly-simplistic argument. No one said the simple fact of Mohammed in a bear costume in-and-of-itself is hateful.

Have you forgotten the call for the death of the cartoonist that portayed Mohammed? The guy lives with two full time body guards now and has had his home turned into a Fort Knox because of the attempts on his life.

It is considered a heinous crime to mock him.

 

[mheslep]

Well, going by the Guidelines:

Furthermore, I think this Guideline is in for the purpose of catching bad actors rather than to censor mocking of public figures, which I don't think is, by itself, such a terrible thing (especially when done for humor).

Exactly. However, the guidelines don't cover what happens when the owners / maintainers of this website come under non-trivial threat similar to what happened to Comedy Central.

In any case, I'm happy to see the cartoon in #29 still flying as part of the discussion.

 

[BoomBoom]

I live about 40 minutes away from where they are located. We could 'peaceably assemble' outside of their offices with images of Muhammed, and wait to see for their reaction. If worse comes to worse, there is going to be some real anti-terrorism work conducted right here in Manhattan.

Haha, I just LOVE this idea!

 

[Pattonias]

As a South Park fan, I can really see how this topic has developed over the years. This last episode seemed to be touching on the fact that they have been permitted to criticize literally every person/event/creed without a word being said by Comedy Central. Mohammad has really become an untouchable issue for them despite the permitted criticism of literally every religion (or non religion as it turns out) that they have decided to sink their teeth into.

If we don't show Mohammad because it is offensive or "in bad taste", how can you argue that the portrayal of a Buddha snorting cocaine and Jesus looking up internet porn is left uncensored. Can you really argue that Mohammad is being censored for being insensitive, but these other religious icons are being mocked to no protest. Apparently you just have to threaten to kill someone to get them to keep their mouth shut. Even in a country that claims to be built on the defense of these principles.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't intend to add further to the convo, but I do wish to correct misunderstandings.

You've totally missed the point, Dave. The episode wasn't created to keep the terrorists at bay.

No, you're actually missing what I said.

The stupid thing is what the OP did: screaming about not censoring an episode because he thinks we have to thumb our noses at terrorists every time we can.

As in personal life, so it is in world affairs: the best revenge is to live well. (i.e. don;t knee-jerk every time someone wants to see what happens when they try to step on your shoe).

Will do, Dave - you clearly don't get either the concept of freedom of speech nor the goal of terrorsts and the point of the war on terror.

Oh my God, y'all're dragging out the old freedom of speech carcass and beating it some more. When will you Americans get comfortable with yourselves...

 

[Jack21222]

As in personal life, so it is in world affairs: the best revenge is to live well. (i.e. don;t knee-jerk every time someone wants to see what happens when they try to step on your shoe).

Are you just arguing against yourself now?

I agree, Comedy Central shouldn't have knee-jerked when Muslim groups tried to step on their shoes.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Oh my God, y'all're dragging out the old freedom of speech carcass and beating it some more. When will you Americans get comfortable with yourselves...

Freedom of speech is dead?
I think I am comfortable in the idea that I can make a joke that someone may not like and not have to worry that they will try to kill me for it. If some people decide that it is suddenly an acceptable and worthwhile behavior to make death threats as a form or cultural/political expression back tracking us to the days of lynchings and cross burnings then I think I might move.

 

[DaveC426913]

Are you just arguing against yourself now?

I agree, Comedy Central shouldn't have knee-jerked when Muslim groups tried to step on their shoes.

No (sigh) the knee-jerk reaction is : omg, we changed our minds about airing this, the terrorists have won!

I don't know why y'all hand them so much power.

I say we censored it - not because of terrorist threats - but because it's offensive to millions of perfectly law-abiding muslim citizens. Whether or not you agree with that, the point is, it is an attempt to do the right thing for the right reason, not a reaction that terrorists "made" us do.

Let me give an analogy.

Child misbehaves.
Parent gets mad and threatens to spank child.
Child screams he will run away if spanked.
Parent calms down and decides not to spank child.

You see, if you react to the child's threat (by basically calling his bluff and spanking him anyway), you hand the child power over the relationship.

No, the appropriate thing to do is to ignore the child's threat - you chose not to spank him because you are a good parent, and because you call the shots, not because of some empty threat.

Likewise, don't hand these terrorists more power than they deserve - we decide to censor the broadcast out of respect for millions of good citizens, not out of reaction to a bunch of fist-shakers.

 

[zomgwtf]

No (sigh) the knee-jerk reaction is : omg, we changed our minds about airing this, the terrorists have won!

I don't know why y'all hand them so much power.

I say we censored it - not because of terrorist threats - but because it's offensive to millions of perfectly law-abiding muslim citizens. Whether or not you agree with that, the point is, it is an attempt to do the right thing for the right reason, not a reaction that terrorists "made" us do.

We understood you the first time (well I understood you) and this is exactly what we thought you meant. It's just not true. They caved under the threats, which IMO is acceptable. What is NOT acceptable is them making the threats and nothing being done about it.