News What Are the Limits of Satire and Free Speech?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aquitaine
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
South Park faced censorship due to a Muslim death threat regarding an episode featuring the prophet Muhammad in a bear costume, leading to significant backlash from fans and commentators. The discussion highlights a tension between free speech and the fear of repercussions from extremist groups, with some arguing that censorship empowers terrorists. Others contend that the episode was pulled not solely due to threats but because it was deemed in poor taste. The debate also touches on the broader implications of satire and the limits of acceptable humor, especially when it involves figures revered by millions. Ultimately, the incident raises questions about the balance between creative expression and societal sensitivities.
  • #31
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 :-p. 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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
cronxeh said:
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. :-p.

I really hope something is done about this though.

Btw, I was talking about in the judicial system. Not the public level.
 
  • #33
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #34
zomgwtf said:
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.
 
  • #35
russ_watters said:
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 :-p It's just normal...
 
  • #36
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #37
russ_watters said:
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
 
Last edited:
  • #38
mheslep said:
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.
 
  • #39
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
russ_watters said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
mheslep said:
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).
 
Last edited:
  • #42
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #43
Gokul43201 said:
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.
 
  • #44
cronxeh said:
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! :approve:
 
  • #45
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.
 
  • #46
I don't intend to add further to the convo, but I do wish to correct misunderstandings.
russ_watters said:
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).

russ_watters said:
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... :rolleyes:
 
  • #47
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #48
DaveC426913 said:
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... :rolleyes:
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.
 
  • #49
Jack21222 said:
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.
 
  • #50
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #51
DaveC426913 said:
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.

How about a better analogy.

John says he is going to draw a picture.
Joe says that he thinks its a bad idea and he'll stab John if John draws the picture.
John says "sorry bout that" and does not draw the picture.

If we consider that John has drawn several pictures and that many people have told him that they were a bad idea what do you think is the most compelling reason for John to have decided not to draw the picture in our scenario?
 
  • #52
DaveC426913 said:
I say we censored it - not because of terrorist threats - but because it's offensive to millions of perfectly law-abiding muslim citizens.
Dave, you have said this over and over and we get it - we disagree becasue your position does not match the facts. What *factual* basis do you have for believing that it was censored because it was offensive?

Have you read the synopsis of the episode? Have you considered the fact that images of Mohammed haven't been censored on South Park in the past? Have you considered that lots and lots of offensive images of others have not been censored in the past? Have you considered that lots of people and religions were insulted much worse in that episode and other recent ones (the Pope in particular has been getting slammed this season)? When starting with these facts, your position simply makes no sense. You've created a logic based on your own assumptions, not based on the facts.
 
Last edited:
  • #53
DaveC426913 said:
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.

South Park is regularly offensive to millions of law-abiding citizens. That is where it gets its entertainment value from. What makes you think they have suddenly and independently decided to "do the right thing" when they have showed no interest in doing so in the past?

If the show continues to be more respectful to all people, Muslim and otherwise, then I will begin to agree with you. Until then I will assume their decision to censor the show is based on avoiding expensive legal cases or threats of violence, not moral principles.

I don't mean to be dismissive, but have you ever watched the show? Before defending their decisions it might be prudent to aquaint yourself with their product.
 
  • #54
DaveC426913 said:
I say we censored it - not because of terrorist threats - but because it's offensive to millions of perfectly law-abiding muslim citizens.
1. "We" did not censor it (unless you are speaking as an employee of Comedy Central). Comedy Central did.

2. If they similarly censored everything else in the show that was offensive to millions of law abiding citizens, there would be nothing left in the show. This is, after all, South Park we are talking about - it aims to offend. But you're not asking that they censor out everything that is offensive to people. So clearly, this is demanding a very selective form of censorship to appease a specific group of people without equal regard to the sensibilities of millions of others.

3. Despite all the evidence against it, is there some reason that we (as you do) should believe that this censorship was brought about by a new-found sensitivity to a segment of the audience?

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.
How can you expect acceptance of your assertion that the underlying reason for censorship was just, irrespective of whether or not there is agreement on what the reason was?
 
  • #55
I have cleared up the misunderstandings as I wished. I have not made my points but I am OK with that.

I simply cannot continue to participate in a discussion that uses the words "the terrorists have won!" and does so with a straight face.

They'd revoke my "I Am Canadian" membership. :rolleyes:
 
  • #56
DaveC426913 said:
I have cleared up the misunderstandings as I wished. I have not made my points but I am OK with that.

I simply cannot continue to participate in a discussion that uses the words "the terrorists have won!" and does so with a straight face.

They'd revoke my "I Am Canadian" membership. :rolleyes:

**** Canada! ;-p

But seriously. I do not fully agree with the "The terrorists have won!" sentiment either and yet I feel I can contribute my opinion. One need be in bed with neither "terrorists" nor "nationalists" to have and opinion and participate in meaningful discussion. I might even argue that more meaningful discussion can be had from people who are not in either camp. You are simply depriving us of a more moderate voice Dave.
 
  • #57
DaveC426913 said:
I have cleared up the misunderstandings as I wished. I have not made my points but I am OK with that.

I simply cannot continue to participate in a discussion that uses the words "the terrorists have won!" and does so with a straight face.

They'd revoke my "I Am Canadian" membership. :rolleyes:

I'm Canadian and I am participating in this thread. Why do you think that participating in a thread titled 'we have given into terrorism' or 'the terrorist won' etc. means that the people participating agree with that sentiment? I definitely do not think that the terrorist have won... we have given them what they wanted though. As well we do continue to allow them to terrorize societies with pretty much no repercussions that effect terrorism.
 
  • #58
I love South Park, and their censorship by Comedy Central is distrubing to me. WHY it's distrubing to me is best summed up by a quote in the South Park 201 Wikipedia page:

UCLA School of Law Professor Eugene Volokh said Comedy Central's actions risk empowering other extremists:

"The consequence of this position is that the thugs win and people have more incentive to be thugs. There are lots of people out there who would very much like to get certain kind of material removed, whether religious or political. The more they see others winning, the more they will be likely to do the same. Behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated."

At what point must this stop? America as a whole gets death threats every week, but no one really takes them seriously. Two TV producers are threatened, and we bow to their will? What's to stop extremists from forcefully taking anything they want through death threats?

"The real culprits here are not Muslims, but the cowards at Comedy Central. We no longer need a genuine terrorist threat to scare us into submission. We’re quite capable of doing it to ourselves. Caving in has almost become a cultural reflex."

Margaret Wente,
The Baltimore Sun
 
  • #59
DaveC426913 said:
I have cleared up the misunderstandings as I wished. I have not made my points but I am OK with that.

I simply cannot continue to participate in a discussion that uses the words "the terrorists have won!" and does so with a straight face.

They'd revoke my "I Am Canadian" membership. :rolleyes:
If the condition for winning is subduing Comedy Central with threats then I could accept the statement "the terrorists have won." Otherwise I agree with the statement as much as you do.
 
  • #60
DaveC426913 said:
I have cleared up the misunderstandings as I wished. I have not made my points but I am OK with that.
Dave, I'm absolutely flabberghasted that you can't see the obvious il-logic in your position. Your point simply makes no sense. But ok - opinions are opinions and you're allowed.
I simply cannot continue to participate in a discussion that uses the words "the terrorists have won!" and does so with a straight face.
I doubt anyone would argue that this constitutes an end to the war on terror. In that way, it's an exaggeration - and everyone makes such exagerrations. It isn't something to get hung up on. This is just one skirmish of one battle of the war. But it is a skirmish they won and one in which a collective "we" gave into them.

If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times - don't get too hung up on a minor/irrelevant exaggeration-for-effect.
They'd revoke my "I Am Canadian" membership.
Wait, is all this just about a chip on your shoulder over South Park's making fun of Canada?!