South Park vs Religion
 

http://entertainment.msn.com/tv/arti...21075&GT1=7703

I am seriously ticked off at Comedy Central for letting the Muslims dictate policy (make no mistake, that is truly the case here). I thought the protests over the Danish comic was over-the-top, and this is even worse. Comedy Central is run by a bunch of hypocrites and cowards.

First they pulled the Scientology episide, and now they force the show to censor out Muhammad "because Muslims find it blasphemous". How dumb.

It is really sad that Trey Parker and Matt Stone have the biggest balls in this country and seem to be in the minority for fighting for the Constitution of this country.

Hey, I'm actually glad that all of this speech oppression happened, because we got 3 damn good SP episodes out of it.

The last three (Super Adventure Club, the 2 Muhammed episodes) have made me laugh and cheer on the SP creators, as they've inserted so many jabs and references that only loyal fans and followers of the latest news stories can understand. They've made fun of themselves, too (last night, a character defended Family Guy, saying something like "I know it's just joke after joke, but I like that. It's better than seeing some preachy cartoon that shoves its message up your ass.")

Shows like this and Wonder Showzen really push the envelope and aren't afraid to take on their opponents full force.

BTW, the comment by that Christian leader in the article just showed that he didn't even watch the episode, he was just told "hey, South Park showed a clip where Jesus shits on the flag and on Bush."

I applaud Comedy Central in their decision. South Park is just taking it too far, and a blatant mockery of some very serious situations is not justifiable. Especially since it remains a sensitive issue and not one that people should inflame even more.

It's like asking a company to broadcast messages about the Holocaust right after it happened glorifying it. It's a bad idea any time, but even more so when issues are still very sensitive.

Comedy Central made the right decision here, and frankly, the South Park creators need to learn a thing or two about the difference between freedom of speech and the moral and physical consequences of their actions, not just for them, but for in particular, other Americans living around the world whos lives are endagered by such arrogant stupidity.

So as an American living in Saudi Arabia, fuck you Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Thank god Comedy Central is more competent than you imbeciles.

I almost thought this was a joke. The crapping all over the flag scene was played so well.

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/7...14558802zp.png
oh ok

You can get your panties out of their knot now.

Yeah, same. Then I noticed that Jazz hadn't closed the thread, and that some kind of discussion was actually taking place.

The terrorists won.

Wait wait wait wait. You mean when it flashed "Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Muhammad on their network," that wasn't a joke? I need confirmation here

If CNN is reporting it, then it must be true!

A freedom is not an obligation, nor should it be.
Choosing not to show images of Muhammad for perfectly legitimate reasons is not a violation of free speech, nor is it abandoning it. It is deferring that right in light of extreme circumstances.

One of the worst things you can do in order to encourage reform is to start some kind of personal crusade.

"Why can't we show pictures of Muhammad?"
"Well, we consider it an imperfect representation of the prophet, and...actually, it's easier if I say 'just because.'"
"That's stupid! You're stupid! We're going to do it anyways!"
"Uh...why?"
"Just because!"

Let's all refuse to believe anything we don't see with our own eyes and

Why don't you get off of Trey and Matt's dick before you open your mouth?

While you do have a point, the argument presented by the episode was that caving into the threat of terrorism is what makes it work. That we're willing to change our ways of life so we can avoid another 9/11 essentially does mean that the terrorists have won.

Let me get this straight, terrorists have won because because the media has chosen to enforce media ethics. Well ... this is merely one facet of it. Data mining, wiretapping, etc. are all really acts of the American government.

If indeed you concede that terrorism has won then you're conceding that America made the mistake of trying to protect the lives of its citizenry through stricter implementation of rules.

If you at it that way, then there's no possiblity of America being the victor. Scenario A: America loses because it caved in "terrorist" demands. Scenario B: America loses because it didn't take "terrorist" threats seriously and ended up being irresponsible.

Or, we could have better security, instead of fewer freedoms. It's been 5 years since 9/11, and we still have terrible customs, and a widely-mentioned estimate of 12 million illegals in the country. If that isn't a testament to how "safe" we are from terrorism, I don't know what is.

The fact of the matter is that nobody is truly safe. Acts of terror can happen anywhere at any time. The best we can do to combat terror, is to target organizations that support it in its organized state. Random acts of terror, however, we'll always be subject to. Would the Patriot Act have stopped the Oklahoma City bombing?

The thing really is that terrorism is an international threat and also internationally based. Therefore local policies in themselves are inept in combatting the phenomena. I actually mainly got this idea from a show of Law and Order I think. Anyway it was this protester girl.

I like how your response doesn't mean anything. I essentially just told you that the best thing we can do to combat terrorism is to attack it's support structure. The thing about a support structure, though, is that it tends to support bodies and groups. Like an organization, say, Al Qaeda.

These organizations pool resources and receive funding for these resources from sources outside of the organization. What resources, exactly, did the Unabomber draw from?

Yeah rereading it, it was vague. The point I suppose I wanted to bring across is that how does one bring down the support structures when these structures exist in other nations. It's not so easy when you add up the fact the immigration issue makes it very hard for all these nations to interact together. I just see it as too complex and probably the only thing thing US can probably do ATM is to restrict some freedoms.

Although I personally am against restriction of basic freedoms.

And whose freedoms are we restricting? Foreigners aren't guaranteed any freedoms by the constitution. If what you're talking about is more thorough customs regarding immigration and visitation, I fail to see how that applies to any loss of freedoms on our part whatsoever.

We have to actively cut off the backing for networks like Al Qaeda, and the only way to do that, is to project force and diplomacy. Domestic policies aren't going to be the end-all for combating terrorism, no, but ultimately terror itself is undefeatable. Why should we be willing to give up freedoms out of fear of some sand nigger with a shoe bomb, when a kracked out Aryan could drive a bus full of fertilizer into a federal daycare center?

You're comparing showing images of Muhammad to the Holocaust? Say what?

They need to learn how to laugh at themselves and just take things in stride. It's not like any Muslim is getting hurt by these images. If anything, the appropriate response from them would be to retaliate in a like manner, which in this case would be by making Jesus cartoons and such.

So wait, you think that because we're threatened with violence, we should cave in to specific demands? There's a word for that . . . What was it again . . . ? Oh, yeah, that's right, terrorism.

Thank you, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

Well, let's see . . . Have we lost freedoms because of terrorist actions and threats? Yes. Have our lives changed because of terrorist actions and threats? Yes. So, yes, the terrorists have essentially "won" here.

You're a wise one, Bradylama. That is all exactly right. You don't limit freedoms to combat terrorism, you strike at its source. Or as the saying goes, it's not how many times you fall, it's how many times you get back up. We have to fight them, spit in their faces, and say "we won't let you run our lives". Will people die? Yeah, probably, but eventually we will win. The path we're going down right now in this country, this isn't the path to victory, this is the road to defeat.

I guess the freedom expressed in the different shows we see. Freedom to protest (speech) , freedom from scrutiny, privacy, etc. Although I do see these more as infringement of personal right rather than necessary governmental action. It is what the government does seemingly want to project however. "Actions necessary to curtail terrorism."

The customs part is not related to freedom. Yeah diplomatic policy is necessary to attack the foundations of terrorism. But that won't exactly be as easy since some of the countries which have terrorist connections and bases are unwilling to deal with the Western world. The immigration policies are actually very good "distractions" for not wanting to interact with a country that is unwilling to accept other nations.

Theoretically it may be a bit of a stretch but I think that many countries are using this or any other similar tactics to defer from dealing with the US, britain or whatever.


Anyway I should probably address the other points.
There is probably no dispute in the terrorists winning thing. People have already become afraid and suppressed.

It's hard to think about what should've been about the episode. I personally believe that people have a choice whether to see the show anyway. And that people who find it offensive can just switch to another channel.

But it's difficult to let this action take its course because the world is very sensitive right now. You're not necessarily addressing only terrorism when you censor the segment. You're actually addressing the concerns of a people, religion, and inter-relations. It would be wiser to be on friendly terms with the people who might harbor ill feelings and potentially be fodder for terrorism. This actions does ensure that at least diplomatic relations won't be so sour over an episode (like over a certain set of cartoons).

According to Islam, Jesus is relative to a prophet. I recall a guy who wrote a play where Jesus was gay receiving death threats. In any case, featuring Jesus pooing on everybody is probably an insult to the prophet, so Trey and Matt are going to be receiving death threats regardless of what Comedy Central did in regards to Muhammad.

How the Muslims are most likely to react is with a cartoon insulting American culture. Probably something about McDonalds or KFC, and Bush. It's essentially how they responded to the Danish cartoons. (and they boycotted Danish products)

Dope, I have no idea what point you're trying to get across. How does curtailing our freedoms in order to fight terrorism, help combat it?

Just wanted to say:

Woah, where the fuck did that come from?

I mean, hell, I've only seen around a fifth of all the South Park episodes, but from the stuff I've seen Matt and Trey do, I really support the guys (similar political beliefs). Isn't that what this discussion is about? Suddenly since you like something, you're some kind of brown-noser?

No, it's since you express your thoughts as a promo instead of an opinion that lines get crossed. The conclusion drawn, then, is that you're either a plant, a parrot, or you're incapable of expressing any thoughts in a form that hasn't been presented in a magazine ad, or a kiss-ass review article.

I mean, really Jazz, you've got to look at what you're saying. Your assesments are full of buzz words that nobody puts any stock in.

Adamgian is again a weeping vagina when it comes to Muslim insults and I'm somehow not shocked.
They're compared in the sense that both are sensitive topics to their particlar peoples. Whether you or normal American society feel that the glorifying of the murder of millions of Jews amounts to more than a desecration of a revered prophet matters little; it's the point of view of Muslims that's being considered in this case, regardless of their supposed illogicality.

Brady:
Well, you see them as buzz words, since they are overused by shows that don't deserve such recognition.

However, I think South Park and Wonder Showzen actually DO "push the envelope" in terms of content and not caring about angry letters.
Well, let's see. The Denmark cartoons represented Muhammed in a few different ways in order to criticize certain elements of Muslim fundamentalist society. That had a purpose.

The South Park representation had two reasons. The "fluff" reason was to make fun of how Family Guy simply puts anyone in their flashback jokes. The second was to prove that even when simply represented standing around in a scene, Muhammed would be censored out.

I thought the American mindset was "if you don't like it, don't watch it." Any other topic we bring up, people generally say, "well, I don't agree with what he's painting/saying/doing, but I will defend his right to say it." Isn't that why we let the KKK hold rallies?

And while they certainly do that, pulling in Wonder Showzen has no bearing on the discussion, since Wonder Showzen is not a sattire. Having God lose in a game of rock/paper/scissors, dying, and being eaten by children is not pushing the envelope in any meaningful way.

This isn't my argument really it's just what I saw on TV. Anyway I believe these were the issues.

People cannot be as free as before. Data mining takes place because there is a need to know of potential terrorist threats existing in the neighborhood. This curtails the right to privacy.

People can't voice out freely because this might impede government action. It's the same line of thinking as "you're either with us or against us". When the government is undermined it loses efficiency in dealing with terrorism. We can relate this as protesting data mining. I can't be afforded that freedom because it undermines the government.

We need stricter rules and regulations because this allows better inspection of people. People with "terrorist" leanings are better known and can be eaiser dealt with.

Wouldn't terrorists come up with plans, and means of communication that circumvent data mining? I recall only several hundred news segments mentioning something about Al Qaeda being loosely knit to avoid intelligence gathering.

Avoiding phone calls to Habib is a fairly simple measure when you're planning a bombing.

How much safer are we with our freedoms being curtailed? We apparently can't say, because any information regarding that is a "Threat to National Security."

Hehe ... well those are probably just the governmental inconsistencies and flaws in action. :D

I do consider the South Park as good diplomatic action at the moment because it may trigger another string of protest rallies and unfortunate oppression. In this scenario its just more ethical and better to abide by non-malificence.

I'm going to ask you something off topic here.

Are you high?

No... just a twang of insanity coming out. :D

Anyway seriously ... I never wanted to defend curtailment of freedom.

So I'll clarify:
The South Park episode is more than just an issue of freedom. It's an issue of ethics and more than that diplomatic relations. The cencorship was fine because it was the ethical course of action to take plus it ensured that no further course of action would have been taken. Seriously, after having been offended and still raging over the danish cartoons you want to feed the fire even more?

Is there an ethical clause in Comedy Central's charter stating that there will never be a portrayal of the prophet Mohammad? Which is more ethically sound, reporting the truth that kills, or a lie that saves lives?

I know it's more of a press issue, but I can't really think of a better analogy.

http://www.abc.net.au/message/proper/med_protocol.htm

Has some ethical considerations for this.
"1. Publishers and broadcasters should not distribute material that is likely to incite or perpetuate hatred against, severely ridicule or incite serious contempt for, a person or group based on the reason that the person is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander or the group is composed of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders."

you can just change the aboriginals to whatever sector.

As for the question, I can't really answer at this point. Too many considerations. :p (although I'm leaning towards life Atm)

restrictions on freedom on citizens is about as useful as gun control laws; they only work on law-abiding citizens! As such, the only ones affected are law-abiding citizens. Terrorists are criminals (violent ones at that), and criminals, by their very nature, break the law and find ways around law enforcement. I deal with criminals every day, I should know. Laws that restrict the freedoms of law-abiding citizens have absolutely zero impact on criminals.

Just like criminals can still get guns as easily today as they could a hundred gun control bills ago, so too can terrorists communicate as well today as before all this nonsense got started.

The biggest mistake you keep making however is that this is a governmental ban. It's not, its a company deciding that it doesn't want to get involved in a very, very contentious issue.

Stop acting like a company exercising common sense means the US has caved to terrorist demands. It's nothing of the sort, its merely the company being logical and sensitive when its an issue that triggers such responces.

That rational decision, however, involves the idea that if they air the material, Muslims will blow shit up. How does that not insult Islam as a whole?

BTW, just as some additional info...

Muhammed was visually shown in another South Park episode (the one with the religious Super Friends), so it's not like we haven't seen his image on the show before.

Exactly! That's one of the things that always got to me. That episode first aired YEARS ago and there were no riots, no boycotting, no documented backlash of any kind. (It's easy to see I'd be blatantly wrong if I said there was no backlash whatsoever.)

Why does the world suddenly care so much what two men with a cartoon have to say? If they hate America so much, they shouldn't waste their time with American cartoons!

Cute. You're saying "fuck you" to somebody while holding the opinion that they can't do the same.

Your integrity just flew right out the fucking window, kid. Good luck getting it back.

My appologies if you've answered this before, but how long have you been in Saudi Arabia and why are you there?

I will make this very easy for you since you are obviously some kind of robot that does not know how to differentiate between emotions.

Terror.
Deference.
Respect.

And none of this yet has addressed the fact that people are printing Muhammad not for any legitimate reason, but because they want to. Even the first cartoons were done "just because." The only reason it's become an issue is because people don't like hearing that others would prefer they not do something. It's the mentality of a 4 year old. Tell them to stay out of the cookie jar and it immediately puts the thought into their head.

It also seems to me that a lot of people had their chance in the beginning to avoid violent conflict, but by appearing to encourage disrespectful behavior, (duh) things escalated.

I never said it was a governmental ban.

How is it not caving in to terrorist threats? Cartoons mock everything from Catholics to the President without threats of "we want to destroy you" and riots. Why should the Muslims be treated differently? What makes them so special that they should get special treatment? Jesus is as sacred to Christians as Muhammad is to Muslims, but the most they do is gripe about things and such, they don't fill the streets in protest. The worse Christians ever do is boycott something into the ground (like they did with Book of Daniel), while the Muslims want to see us tarred and feathered for it and would like to see us destroyed (not just for this, mind you, but still, I'm sure you get what I'm trying to say here).

So why, pray tell, do they deserve special treatment?

Are people always this hostile and so quick to toss out attacks around here? Your attempt was decent, but there's no meat to it.

No legitimate reason? These people use their religion as an excuse to hate us, with a good chunk of them wanting to see us destroyed. The Danish comics just illustrated the ignorance of such thinking. As for the South Park episodes in question, it was making a statement against censorship, nothing more, nothing less. You may not think that's important, but it is. This is the Constitution of the United States we're talking about here. Freedom of speech is part of the 1st Amendment, meaning the founding fathers must have thought it was mighty important. By treating them differently, we're literally caving in to the demands of a specfic group of people.

It's like Kyle said on the episode (and it did have an important message, more important than any dumb reality show ever has): if we let this group have their way, then we have to let the next group have their way, and so on and so forth. Soon everyone else is running the show instead of the creators, and freedom of speech thus perishes. Caving in to these demands, as such, is just not right.

Many people have died protecting these freedoms we have. I myself lost my father at a young age in war. I myself would be willing to die to make sure these people don't win and don't put their personal beliefs on us. You simply can't make light of that, sorry.

And you'd be a fool to believe that the wars that are fought are entirely 'for the freedom of the US'.

So what you are suggesting is that Christians and other groups that are offended should riot like the Muslims have? I mean, it's only fair that they react the same way since they are treated the same.

Am I the only one here that finds the idea of wronging another (inflamatory media) to be ok, and the offended should just 'deal with it' attitude amusing? It's like, I can punch you in the nose, but there is nothing wrong with that, as you have the right to punch me right back. See? Everybody is happy in the end! Huh? What do you mean I didn't have a reason to punch you in the nose? I wanted to.

Now I'm all for freedom of speach, but I find the notion that it's not only one's right, but damn near one's duty to say inflamatory things and offend others as a really poor use of one's rights. Sure you can do it, but it doesn't make sense.

Sorry, but these people use your foreign policy as an "excuse" to hate you. They just happen to be religious people.

That is essentially the crux of the argument. It's the basic idea behind terrorism.

Assuming that Christian interest groups did riot, I can guarantee you that they would get results. The fact that they don't riot and aren't associated with terrorism is testament to shows like South Park and Wondershowzen. There is no fear associated with lambasting their icons, so there is no risk.

However, when we elect not to express ourselves out of fear of violence, we're being cowed into complacency.

Whether or not Comedy Central decided to pull Muhammed is inconsequential, the point of the show was to illustrate that terrorism works when you let its threat change your life.

Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't cowed into complacency, and for that he was shot. Men like King that were willing to stand up and express themselves despite the threat of reprisal are the only ones that have actively elected to practice the First Ammendment.

I'm not saying that Trey Parker and Matt Stone are moral crusaders here, just that they have a point that you don't seem to be willing to entertain.

I mean, it's obvious that you don't get it, since you've compared making fun of people to a punch in the goddamn face.

Also, Kudos Jazz, I had completely forgotten about Muhammed in The Super Best Friends. It really puts things in perspective.

I like how you guys find censorship (self-inflicted or otherwise) an acceptable response to people who are far too easily offended. Blowing shit up because someone made a joke about you shouldn't be any more acceptable than punching someone in the mouth for it.

The ridiculous thing is that Muhammed wasn't even made fun of.

It seems now that Muslims are a special protected group. Everyone and everything can be mocked and insulted with the exception of Muslims. The National Geographic special on the so called Gospel of Judas cuts at the core of who Jesus was and links him with the Gnostic movement of the first century. The DaVinci Code blatantly challenges the Bible's version of Christ, yet these are fully supported and played up by the press. Big headlines with the Gospel of Judas announced how this would challenge Christianity. But show an image of Mohammad...no we can't go there, someone might get their panties in a wad and go all postal.

So, exactly how is a legitimate concern regarding the legitimacy of certain gospels tantamount to a bomb turban?

Didn't we already see the same development with african americans? It is bad to say nigger but at the same time, blacks are still the usual suspects when it comes to petty crime, deprived of equal career chances and so on.

11 years, because my family is there for business.

Because the situation is entirely different. The fact of the matter is, Muslims as a whole are currently lamblasted in the US media, many for no apparent reason. If the situation weren't as fragile, it wouldn't be as delicate of an issue. Hell, before 9/11, I wouldn't have objected at all. But the situation is entirely different, and thats why this issue can't fly.

As was said above, its not religion, its foreign policy. Read what they say, they aren't attacking the US for being non-Islamic, on the contrary, they don't really give a damn, so long as the US stays out of their affairs. It's because of the US's support of Israel and the way it uses its army in the Gulf that causes problems.

Being represented on South Park is considered an insult. I'm sure you can understand that.

So you're willing to risk death for your business but not freedom?Not really.

I do understand that (unless you're overly sensitive) there's nothing to be insulted by. Now, if they had done a spoof of Muhammed specifically defiling Islam, I could understand people being insulted. They didn't, so I don't.

Yeah.. my stepdad (whom I am very close to) came in for dinner tonight and said that he wouldn't watch South Park anymore because they took it too far. He said they said sometime about Jesus and pushed it to far. He watches this show like it were porn...

I told him he was a hypocrit in a sense. I mean they make fun of everyone!
One half of my family is Jewish and I still watch it and when I watch it with him he laughs at the Jew jokes in front of me and I don't get offended.

I don't remember anything about Jesus? I did miss the second part though.

This is probably what he's referring to.

In the episode, after the Family Guy skit (which was supposed to have Mohammed, but was censored,) al-Zawahiri released a "retaliation film" which featured a bunch of "Americans" crapping on each other, with Jesus joining, and then they were crapping on the American flag.

And yes, your father is a hypocrite. You know, not just because of the Jewish jokes, but because of all the potshots they make at Chritianity, too.

Because theres no real risk of death anymore than in the US so long as the stupidity and arrogance of the US media and Congress is controlled.

We wouldn't be in the country if we believed that it were too risky to stay, on the contrary, we have plans set up in case the need to get out quickly ever arises. However, they're just that - backup plans. And we don't want to put them into use, especially when its because some goofballs are incapable of grasping the situation.

I've seen a decent amount of South Park, so I guess I should correct my statement.

Anyone could get offended by whats on the show, it addresses issues with enough vulgarity that its not too much of a stretch, whether they be conservative Christians, Jews, or Muslims. It's not one particular group.

Yeah...I guess I overlooked that. Yeah, I mean Jesus' talk show has been on there since the show started.
He is saying all this because of something he heard on the radio.

I'll clarify it some more:
People who would make that much of a fuss over something as trivial as a freaking cartoon are either extremely unbalanced in the head and incapable of processing anything besides violence, or have life much easier than anyone here in the US as we have significantly bigger issues to worry about than who's drawn in a cartoon. Considering we rank above all those countries in higher standard of living, I'm willing to bet it's the first one. By censoring a show over the same thing they're making a fuss about, it's telling them that they're violent protests are okay, that violence is the answer and we should all live in fear and fear should govern all rights and freedoms and we should cower at their feet. And if we're going to go that far, hell, why not just kick out the government we have and welcome in our new leaders?
Seriously...this is rediculous beyond all rediculousness. Instead of groveling at the feet of every fring lunatic group that wants to blow something up why not just tell them to chill the fuck out?
Either way, I guess anyone in Al Qaida who made it into the US just needs to go live in whatever city Comedy Central is based out of so they'll have someone to whipe and kiss their asses whenever they want.

Anyway, anyone else who wishes to stand up for free speech and against cowardice, I'm starting a boycott on Comedy Central until they decide to air the episode uncensored.

I don't think I stated anything that was particularly venomous, just pointing out that you are overlooking a large part of this argument.

You heard right. The cartoons were made to test the waters. To ask whether or not there would be a large response to Muhammad in a cartoon. once it was made clear that yes, people didn't like it when the prophet was put in the newspaper, and no, they especially didn't like having the whole thing flaunted in their face by the Danish prime minister refusing to meet with Arabic envoys, and other papers "championing the cause of free speech," just because they can, well I think we lost all claims to legitimacy.

You don't need to preach to me. I understand what the first amendment means. That doesn't change the fact that you cannot differentiate between what we have the right to do and what we have the obligation to do, or respect from cowtowing to demands.

See, that's the problem. Everybody wants change NOW. No one is willing to accept the fact that reform, especially one of a religious nature affecting millions of people worldwide, will be a slow and arduous process during which compromises may need to be made for the sake of a better good. The reality of this situation is that it probably won't happen within our lifetime, and I think knowingly inciting violence is certainly not going to affect these poor, ignorant folk for whom you have taken it upon yourself to show the light of legitimacy and reason, for the better.

And stop calling it "caving in."

I'm actually curious to what kinds of things you're referring to. I mean, I don't watch the Today show and see Al Roker complaining about some towelheads moving in next door.

Cranky?

I absolutely get it, and I agree that they have the right to say what they wish. And it seems most discriminatory of the network to censor this topic, while they allow quite similar things to be joked about.

The point of my argument was that going out of one's way to hurt or provoke another *for no reason other than to piss them off* doesn't seem like a great way to use one's freedom of expression. I'm not saying that is the case here, but it could very well be.

That you or I don't feel that those insults are on par to an attack on one's person is immaterial by the way. My example was *supposed* to represent something that we could all agree is a dick move, since we can't adequately grasp how the mohamad pictures affect someone with such strong beliefs. But you instead take the opportunity for a 'Haha, they get mad at dumb stuff, not the not-dumb stuff that we would get mad at.'

The motivations of the cartoonists are at the heart of the issue. If they are really trying to get across a message, then great. If they are just trying to start shit, then not so great. Either way, they should have the right to do so, and the network sucks for their stance on selective censorship.

You guys don't really get it do you? This is a very different circumstance as was pointed out earlier. Did anyone poke fun at 9/11 right after it happened. Imagine South Park making fun of Bush right after the tragedy? I doubt that would be the right thing to do. And I would think that they refrain because guess what it would be their fellow Americans that their targetting.

The earlier episodes of Muhammed wasn't exactly hot before because there was no Danish outrage. This freedom clause is causing just a cycle of violence and insults. I don't expect any resolution to come of it if it were to continue.

There have always been protesters about South Park (Jews, Scientologists, etc.) The only difference with this time is that the Muslim body has managed to amass a greater number than before. This incident is just way bigger and more sensotove than previous years.

Should there be special treatment for Muslims? Hmm... the first question is: should they be judged using American standards? Considering that they're in a way different culture I don't this wholly applies. The freedom clause to them is an insult to their race and class. They don't see it as expression due to their very different culture and environment.

I couldn't believe that there was an earlier generalization that majority of Muslims wanted to destroy Americans. This is the exact sentiment that Muslims and people around the world are against. It's racial prejudice in action. And no matter how much people rally nothing would be resolved.

Bradylama earlier pointed out that diplomacy was the key. I agree yet the way that press freedom and oppression are being forced down each other's throats it's as if diplomacy was not a possibility.

Editorials concerning DP World, Accountability Acts in Congress, the general anti-Arabism according to multiple polls in the country, and Arab portrayal in movies in particular as the "bad guys." Coupled with an extremely strong amount of Israeli support at the expense of the Arabs a lot, and we have a situation.

I highly doubt the purpose was to incite Muslims. Creating a visual representation of the prophet is considered Blasphemy, but that doesn't exactly apply to non-Muslims. Obviously, if you aren't a part of a religion, you aren't committing its blasphemies. The problem lies in the Prophet being insulted as he was in the Danish press.

I remember an arab cartoon that Adamgian posted which seemed apt, portraying Freedom of Speech in Denmark as ok so long as you're making fun of Islam.

Adamgian also has a point about the portrayal of Arabs in the media. Comedy Central itself has Carlos Mencia come on every week attacking Arabs and Muslims, but he's a wetback so it's ok. The hypocrisy is astounding, especially considering that the specific episodes weren't insulting Islam.

Pardon my ignorance, sir, but isn't there a BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE between drawing a cartoon and firebombing someone's house?

(Yes I know it was the Danish embassy and not a house; I'm just taking it down to the personal level.)

What Skexis is saying is that the Danish government's refusal to distance themselves from the opinions expressed in Jyllands-Posten doesn't come off as a protection of free speech, and more as a condoning of the act of insulting the Prophet.

People loved to champion the causes of the Danes despite their illegitamacy regarding the issue.

Put that way, the logic seems much more sound. Thank you.

Seriously... with the way things are going a few years down the road people will be able to claim racism unless you say nothing more than "hello" and in at least five different languages, but then they can still claim racism because you didn't include theirs. If you're going to worry about who's offended, why the hell even bother at all? Why even have anything on tv past the weather channel?
Everyboy Loves Raymond could be deemed offensive by people who think life should be taken too seriously for jokes. Star Wars could be deemed racist because entire movies in the series had no black people and the one black character it did have got killed. Monkey Ball could be deemed offensive as it has monkeys trapped in balls. Football could be deemed sexist as very few women play.
Might as well not teach World War 2 in history anymore either. I'm sure Italians or people with Italian heritage might get offended over hearing about what their great country took part in. Same goes for Germans and Japanese.
Also, I don't like hearing bad news. Maybe that means all news stations in the Cleveland area should shut down? I know I'm only one in millions of people who live around here, but hey, who cares? One person doesn't like what's being said.
You have to draw the line somewhere, and the only way to truly be fair is to either allow everything or allow nothing at all, and free speech is too vital to deny.

This is a place where when things got started the general idea was that just because a single group of people were opposed to something didn't mean that it automatically had to be censored. I guess we sure raped that one up the ass, didn't we?

Physical assault is harmful, satire is not. Do you not see the difference?

First off, you should know that, historically speaking, it is absolutely true that blacks are more likely to commit petty crimes and whites are more likely to commit the overly heinous crimes. That would be why the average crook is black more often than not, but the average serial killer is white more often than not. This is simple use of statistics here. It is not racist in the least, it is about trends. If history shows someone being more likely to do something than someone else, of course they are more likely to be suspected. Thing is, we in law enforcement may use these trends to get initial suspects, but we use the evidence to find the final answer.

On your second point, I really am sick of people saying blacks (and women) are deprived of equal pay and equal opportunities. Racism still exists, sure, but it is not as widespread as it used to be. I have plenty of black co-workers, and I can say beyond a doubt that they are not held back. Also, as a woman, I definitely can not complain about my opportunities and pay. This is 2006, things are not quite as severe as they used to be. There is still unfair bias (such as people who do not know me thinking I am not that tough because I am a woman), and sure it takes extra work to prove yourself, but hey, that is life. I have no problem with it. In fact, I have to admit that it is quite entertaining to prove people wrong about me.

If Islamic countries would stop trying to obliterate Israel, we might be compelled to stay away. If Palestine would stop being so hypocritical by doing things like speaking of peace and then electing Hamas members to a majority of their "parliament", we might be compelled to stay away. Sadly, that is not the case.

Honestly, if it were up to me, I would sit down with the Israelis and the Palestinians and say: "Look, start getting along or maybe we will just have to take over to make you get along. The United States gets along well enough as a melting pot, so why is it you people seem unable to freaking share?" Israel has done its fair share of wrong, but as of right now, I believe Palestine has done a greater share of wrong.

Listen closely. South Park is fiction. South Park is a cartoon. South Park is not real. Anyone who gets lambasted by it, I say "get over it". To get hostile over a joke is just dumb.

Really? You called me "robot that does not know how to differentiate between emotions". I certainly consider that "venomous". I doubt there are many people out there who think more independently than I do.

Wrong. The cartoons were made to send a message, a message that censorship in fear of retaliation is equal to caving to terrorism. That message is, well, right on the money.

Championing free speech just because is precisely why free speech exists. You know that, right?

Again, it was a cartoon, a work of fiction. Now if President Bush went on the air crapping all over Muslims, yeah, that would be a bit disrespectful, but this is a cartoon full of toilet humor that tries to entertain while sending messages Rush Limbaugh style (demonstrating obsurdity by being obsurd). They have no obligations, and censoring them because a bunch of people might throw a fit is indeed cowering to demands.

Well, by definition, that is precisely what it is. Why not call a spade a spade?

It is fiction. I can not stress this enough. Besides, they were sending a message, not trying to insult people for no reason.

Um, no, you compared an action that is "insulting to a single religion" to what is a criminal offense in most countries. Ironically, punching a woman in the face is accepted in Islamic Fundamentalist countries if the woman in question does not follow the letter of religious law.

Better yet, since I am highly offended by the Muslims' gross human rights violations and their blatant mistreatment of women, should I go and threaten to blow up their homes and businesses and such in an attempt to force them to change? I mean, if it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander, right?

I thought not.

Either which way, we have freedom of speech in this country. Their motives matter not. I would be far more interested in stopping white supremicists from rallying in public than censoring South Park, giving the relative severities of the actions in question. Yet we allow white supremicists to rally in public. Why should we give anything to the Muslims when we allow hate groups to march freely? If I were to censor anyone, they would be at the top of the list.

Well I have a definite problem when a culture is so open about human rights violations and mistreatment of women. That is a bit personal for me. That, however, is real. South Park is not. See the difference? If South Park made fun of women (which it has), then fine, I have no problem with it. It is a work of fiction. I am far more interested in stopping cultures that commit real atrocious acts against women in reality than I am in stopping a cartoon from hurling insults.

As the saying goes, sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. In the case of Muslims, those stones kill women who violate religious law.

That is not racism, it is reality. If it were not, how would Hamas, a known terrorist organization, get such a strong following in Palestine, which happens to have the full support of the rest of the Islamic community? The proof is in the pudding, as it were. If they want to stop giving off this "die die die" vibe toward us, they need to stop blatantly backing terrorist groups!

I may be more or less Atheist, but AMEN TO THAT!

Anyway, I think a thread name change is in order. "South Park vs Religion" is misleading. It should be something more like "CC caves to muslim radicals demands"

The problem is that you think anything, anywhere, no matter the content or intent that is not aired like dirty laundry is censorship. And that's simply not true.

I think free speech is intended to give us the choice of whether or not we have need to say something, and if we do have need to do so, then we may do so with the understanding that ideas are not foolproof, and the reality of a situation may demand a fair bit more caution than our ideological flamboyancy and tendency to become born-again patriots the second we think our rights are coming under fire would normally give.

Censoring them is not my goal, but what really do they want to accomplish except to inflame hatred among the people they would conceivably most want to convince? This comes back to the reality of the situation. You keep talking about Islam as if saying "They're going about things the wrong way." Well, okay, I'd definitely have to agree. But you're well aware of what the probable reaction will be. So how are you going to respond? Are you going to rhetorically scream in their face, or attempt some kind of dialogue that doesn't involve an imperialistic view of the world. Don't treat it as the white man's burden and you might find more open ears.

See, this is why I called you a robot. Not because you can't think for yourself. You're still treating this as if it was a black and white discussion, with us or against us, roe vs wade, coward or freedom fighter. You keep refusing to note that in any human interaction there is a spectrum of results, and not an A or B choice.

You can't say South Park has no meaning and can't harm anyone, but carries a solemn and informative message at the same time. Either you acknowledge that the show has intentions, which may be misconstrued, taken out of context, or aggrandized, or it is "just fiction."

See, you're not anywhere near reality. The only important thing you said is that you have to draw the line somewhere. But that doesn't have to mean some kind of polarized America, where everyone is a fucking jerk to one another because hey, if I said your face looked like it had been run over by a truck, I had the right to say it.

TV executives?

Free Speech doesn't exist to be championed, and it doesn't exist so that people can be reasonable. If we were honestly looking to create a reasonable society, Skexis, then we'd outlaw political parties.

Freedom of speech exists so that no matter who you are and what you think, you have the right to voice those opinions in any forum. Of course, you can't say anything anywhere. If you went to the Anti-Defamation League and said that the 12 Jew Bankers were using Orthodox Judaism to take us off the Gold Standard and crush the United States in debt, they'd be well within their rights to eject you from the premises. If you go out in public with a megaphone and shouted "Niggers need to go back to Africa!" that's making a nuisance of yourself, and is called Disturbing the Peace. There are acceptable boundaries for the expression of one's opinion, but ultimately the point is that one should be able to express it.

Freedom of Speech only exists because the rule of law allows us to voice our thoughts without the fear of reprisal, and that's what the "Family Guy" episode was trying to get across. If people are kept from voicing their opinions out of fear, then we have no freedom of speech.

That said, it's well within the rights of Comedy Central to censor certain materials in the best interest of the company. I mean, they didn't show tits when they aired those crappy teen movies, right?

Nobody has been denied the First Ammendment, the problem however, is that we've allowed it to become undermined due to intimidation.

And that's where it becomes a subjective matter. Because while two people may agree that the spirit of the law needs to be upheld, how they go about it is going to differ greatly. Whereas one person will think that any infraction, any perceived harm to the great and almighty RIGHTS should be met with immediate and conclusive antagonism, another person might take the opportunity to see things from another person's point of view, and to try to convince them without having to make it a contest of whose ideas are better.

And then we get into more subjective discussion about who is doing what and for what reasons. Just like not every person wanting free speech wants to make public nudity charges a thing of the past, not every person that self-censors is doing so out of fear.

I don't think you fully understand tyhe 1st Amendment in that case. It's a right and has nothing to do with necessity.

I think the terrorists have already shown their unwillingness to negotiate or take part in diplomacy. They always want everything their way!

"Any" is quite a far-reaching word, you know. I don't agree with you on this point. While most situations do have many shades of gray, this, quite frankly, isn't one of them.

Wait, you don't think a work of fiction can have a message? Haven't you ever heard of a "moral of the story"? Works of fiction have messages all the time. That's the case here with South Park.

To wit, the content itself is fiction and should not be taken seriously, but the underlying message is still there, under the fiction. That's how such messages work.

If you told me that, I'd just laugh at you. I've been called plenty of names in my day. Bitch, slut, cunt, psycho, whore, you name it. Sometimes they were true, sometimes they were offensive, but never once did I assault someone for saying such things, nor have I threatened to do so (at least not that I recall, although I might have when I was a kid).

Basically, there is no shade of gray here. The Muslims are overreacting, and badly. Those overrations are causing companies to make decisions they would not otherwise make, decisions being made out of fear. Basing decisions on fear for reprisal is the very definition of terrorism. So yes, in this case, I do believe it's black and white.

On the other hand, nobody's rights are being denied. Comedy Central owns their own air time, and they have full operational right to decide what can or can't go on it.

So, it should be up to us to show the err of their ways? Quite the burden you'd be accepting there, eh?


Ultimately I basically can't agree with Skexis, though. I'd rather live in an environment where I can hurt people's feelings and be treated in kind.

Very true. This is a problem however that can lead to denial of First Amendment rights. If the squeaking wheel gets coddled consistently you risk the establishment of a specially protected group that cannot be spoken of negatively at any time. If corporations are intimidated, how far a leap is it to intimidate congressional representatives and so on. I'm not saying this has happened, but I fear it's close.

There is also a basic misunderstanding among people as to freedom of speech. Comedy Central understood that freedom of speech doesn't mean that the speech is without consequences. In Houston some restaraunt workers were fired because they didn't show up for work when they attended the anti immigration protests. They are now being represented by an advocacy group saying that they were punished for exercising their freedom of speech, when in reality they're being punished because they neglected to show up for work. I'm sure Comedy Central weighed its options and said, Meh..its just not worth the hassle.

That being said, I think their decision was very hypocritical in light all the other South Park episodes. Apparently all these easily offended people are incapable of changing the channel.

But by seeing the issue in black and white, you are advocating the same mentality. No negotiation, no compromise, no consideration for others. They are wrong.

Sure Muslims over react to things, but what do you suggest to change this? If someone is offended when you do a thing, does doing it over and over again really improve things? I'm just wondering what you hope to have changed and how.

I believe they are wrong. Their human rights violations are absolutely terrible and their treatment of women is completely over the line. Still, that does not mean we should invade them, but neither does it mean we should give in to their demands.

The point, the thing this tries to change, is this absolutely ignorant self-censorship nonsense. So what if they could be offended? Let them complain. Oh, I forgot, their idea of "complaining" is to cheer on terrorists as they blow us up! So yeah, they are in the wrong. They answer insults with violence, and that is unacceptable in civilized society. If I had blown up every person who ever called me a name or offended me, I would be in the same boat as John Wayne Gacy or Charles Manson.

Let them complain, but do not bow down to them. If they then attack us, then we attack them back and show them where the power lies. I guarantee if some guy attacked me for insulting him, I would put him in the morgue in the blink of an eye. That, my friends, is self-defense. The bottom line, though, is that you do not answer insult with violence; violence is only acceptable when the target does something, well, violent. South Park is not harming anyone, period, that is fact. As such, threatening violence would be crossing the line. I say let this stuff air to send a message to all Americans: do not be intimidated. Let them try their worst, and when they do, they will regret it.

*shrug*
I'm sure I am pulling some of my personal philosophy into my interpretation of what a right is, but that's a personality difference and has little bearing on the discussion.

Part of the difficulty I think we're having is that we're referring to different things. I'm talking about not only Comedy Central's part in this, but also that of news organizations that preferred not to print the cartoons in question, as well as some of the cartoonists that refused to draw them in the first place. This is a multitiered issue, and obviously there's not an easy solution.

Because, see, I don't think "deal with it" is a beneficial solution for anyone concerned.

Quite the opposite. I think that any text can have a multitude of different meanings, not all of which the author intended, and plenty of which can "hurt."

Messages, like the political cartoons, like the complicity of some of the news organizations that printed the cartoons, do not always have their intended effect, nor does the person on the receiving end always understand implicitly what was meant in the first place. We are all witnesses to that fact. I am advocating patience, not submission.

So, let's say you laugh in my face when I call you a dirty name, or tug on your pigtail, or steal your pencil, or whatever you want to equate this to. I really don't care, as long as you acknowledge that the religious undertones of this dispute do, in fact, matter, so it's not as simple as "ignoring it." So anyway, I keep doing it. And doing it. And making sure that you know that I am doing it. In fact, I make sure everyone else knows I'm doing it, and that you can't stop me even if you tried.

Let's be honest here. Your solution is to continue bullying Islam as a whole until they see the light or you send them to it.
Does this strike you as somewhat odd and egomaniacal, or are you so committed to the prospect that actions do not have moral significance that you think anyone should be able to do anything as long as it doesn't break section 38-C of statute 411 of California penal code?

It seems to me that Islamists are the ones doing the bullying here. Images of Christ are ok to portray in any vile or negative form because Christians generally won't threaten to kill the cartoonist or burn down the embassy of his home nation. Muslims on the other hand seem to be more inclined to such violence and therefore they bully various media outlets to conform to their demands. You advocate patience, but patience is dangerously close to appeasement. The radical arm of Islam hasn't changed in many centuries, how long are we to wait before we dare satirize any aspect of Islam?

Can anyone say that they're really surprised it came to this? Parker and Stone were going to push South Park to the limits of what most people would deem decent acceptable entertainment. Comedy Central was bound to stop them at some point.

Personally, if I were Parker/Stone I would try to use this incident to get out of my contract and walk off with the money. I wouldn't be surpised if that was the overall intent. But uhh that's just me. :)

Well, if anything, this controversy made for a great group of episodes, while ones that don't raise important issues (the crappy ass Towlie episode that was just on last night) sometimes suck major balls.

Were the main characters even in last night's episode? Geez, it was just one long gag about Oprah's vagina/asshole talking in a rough British accent.

Yes, that was a bit of a disappointment.

They held that out a bit. At first I didn't expect the whole episode to be centered around it. Oh well, maybe they just get inspired once in a while.

Parker and Stone long ago pushed the limits of what MOST people find acceptable. The problem here is that they did something that a select few violent people find unacceptable. Do you really think most americans give a shit if Mohammad is portrayed in a cartoon? Are you saying most Americans think Jimmy and Timmy beating the crap out of each other in a cripple fight, or jesus being beaten up by the devil or a talking piece of poo are just fine but a cartoon Mohammad, well damn, thats over the line? Why did Comedy central use this as the stopping point. Are they afraid of violent retribution or are they being as politically correct as the rest of the media and granting a special protected status upon islam?

Nope, but South Park is not strictly limited to a American audience. It's shown all over the world. Including parts of Europe. You know, the place where all the riots occured over a cartoon took place?

Probably both. The two are virtually the same reasons. I bet they're also a little wary of inciting anti-muslim feelings worldwide given what is going on in the world. As you've said, South Park has already crossed more then a few lines for most people.

There's plenty of reasons why censorship happens. Not getting slapped with huge fines by the FCC is another one. Stone/Parker can't act like they're the only people being persecuted here. That's all I'm saying.

Why is it that all of the sudden Mohammed is a hot topic? This is insanely stupid. South Park blasts other religions, and its funny, but all of the sudden Mohammed is over the top? This is stupid.

I define censorship as the following:
Some people are too simple or closeminded to be able to see things from other people's perspectives, so they simply say BAN IT for their own moral conscious.

Sure South Park has crossed the line for some folks. I love the show, yet there are several episodes I'd rather not watch because I think they're sort of offensive, so, no big deal, I just don't watch them. It just seems very hypocritical to allow any and all other abuses take place but keep Islam off limits. If this intimidation is taken to its logical conclusion we could be facing Sharia like laws making the denegration of Islam a crime...all because we don't want to piss certain people off.

I agree totally. South Park definitely crossed the line with the "Super Adventure Club", at least for me. I don't think pedophilia can ever be made to be funny, period, unless some little kids are beating the shit out of a pedophile. Then its hilarious. But hey, if that plays to some peoples humor, who am I to say they can't make an episode about it? Just so long as people arent actually DOING it.

To quote Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that word means what you think it means." In reference to patience, that is. What you're describing as patience fits the dictionary definition of submission.

Wanna bet? Given your example, it sounds like the setting would be in a school, correct? In that case, I report you to the teacher, and you get a recess taken away. To use a proper Fullmetal Alchemist term here, I'd consider it "equivalent exchange". You keep it up, you keep getting punished. Eventually, you either get it through your head that you need to cut it out, or I start laughing at you for being a dumbass and getting all your recesses taken away.

Doing things your way, I would grab you by the collar, push you against the wall, and say "Leave me alone or I'm gonna bash your head in with a brick!", and you stop out of fear of retribution. Is that acceptable behavior? Hell no!

Who is doing more bullying here? People making fun of others via cartoons, or people threatening to blow other people up in response? I'd say the latter myself . . .

Oh, and as for actions having moral significance, I've never said they don't. I'm saying words don't have moral significance. I know a lot of women will turn red if you call them cunts, but me, I would just return the favor and call you a jackass. Eye for an eye. You call me a name, I call you a name, I don't decapitate you and feed you to rabid monkeys. Making cartoons with a message, that's words, not actions.

Hahaha, don't get me wrong. I may work in a branch of law enforcement, but that doesn't mean I'm a gung-ho legalist. There are plenty of laws I disagree with. Heck, some laws I disagree with so much that even if I do witness the law being broken, I do absolutely nothing about it. Granted, that doesn't happen often in my line of work (I'm not a beat cop or a detective or anything, and I don't deal with "mundane" crimes), and a lot of the time it is outside my jurisdiction, but I do have the authority to do something about it in such cases, and if I disagree with the law, I admit it, I ignore it. I really am disgusted when people in similar lines of work go so much by the book that they don't see the stuff going on right under their noses; I keep my eyes open for truly important stuff.

So no, I'm not about going by the book, I'm about doing what's right and caring about what should be cared about. People making cartoons thousands of miles away, that's not important, that's a blip on my radar. The people who threaten to blow people up in response, though, that'll get my attention. Giving in because of that possible retribution is, of course, the dictionary definition of submission, and their actions follow the dictionary ddefinition of terrorism. To me, it's that simple.

Exactly. QFT.

Bingo. Also QFT.

It's politics. All of it. It doesn't really have to be intelligent or make sense. You guys are trying to be rational about political matters which really doesn't mesh well at all.

Censorship is the fear of speaking out. When has politics ever not been based upon fear? Most wars were started by fearful men. Not because people were afraid of a war, but the fear of what would happen if they didn't start one.

First off, I haven't heard anything about direct threats being made about these South Park episodes.

Your example seems to be quite similar to what has happened. That being, in order to keep two parties from acting poorly, a third party (teacher, or TV network) stepped in to difuse the situation.

Also, by your example you imply that there isn't, nor should there be, a ruling body (or common ground regarding issues) to stand between the Muslims and those that wish to insult them. You also go on to explain that without that ruling body shit turns ugly that didn't have to turn ugly. So it really seems like you want to push things until violence does ensue and then see who wins in a fight. Now sure, this will 'solve' things for a while, but is this really what you are trying to advocate in Muslim/non-Muslim relations?

The biggest difference between my example and what's going on is that the people "making fun" (South Park, in this case) aren't doing anything wrong (which would not be the case in a school setting), and yet are getting "punished" anyway.

That would certainly be better than caving in to them, yes. Sure, no specific threats were made, but given how they reacted to pretty much the exact same thing in the past, it's quite a safe bet that their reaction this time would be the same.

Anyway, yes, I would rather let South Park "insult" them and let them start a fight and then have to fight than just cave in to the possibility of being attacked, yes, because otherwise, what the heck good does the Constitution do for us? To censor South Park because of the possibility of backlash is un-American; don't get me wrong, I'm no hard-headed patriot, but in this case, the word fits.

So, what's the solution then? I mean, you could try wipping out Muslims, is that really the only, or best alternative to not running the cartoons?

I honestly want to know how you'd like this situation to play out.

Again, this is a generalization on the part of the Muslim community. Not every Muslim community is such and many take offense at such incidences. BTW the film Osama has a great depiction of violence against women in Afghanistan (some time ago).

Also this is a bit complex since that aspect which you cited as an example is more of an universal human right while the so-called utility of press freedom has ended up as a planned insulting lashing to the Muslim community (also it's an entirely different issue). Democracy allows that we have basic freedoms that do not infringe upon the rights of others. In this case the freedom from persecution and whatever.

Again not true. We actually have governements like Jordan ending up being the targets of terrorism because they are unwilling to support the terrorist cause.

Who's around to see that the lines are drawn accordingly except ourselves? The citizens of a country that we love and would not want to see its values used to extort silence from others? It's manipulation in the worst way possible to say that because we believe this, they should be silent. Which is exactly what happened in the case of Denmark.

The resulting riots were deplorable, and I imagine, unfortunately, that they were praised by as many Imams as the ones who called them deplorable. But I see no reason to believe that there is any kind of organized threat against the American government over what has transpired, and therefore no terrorist threat. A riot is fleeting, and shapes over incindiary issues. To say that this will encourage some kind of active war against Denmark or the states is to place the whole of the population once again into the role of terrorist. Something all of us, but in particular the people who refer to Islam as a problem in and of itself, need to stop doing.

While we're using pop culture analogies, I might as well use one of my own. I remember an episode of Law & Order wherein information about a murderer is unwittingly made available to the press. The police advise caution in releasing it, as it might cause the murderer to bolt, and spring up later with another corpse. Is the newspaper right because they consider it their duty to inform the public? Are the cops right because they didn't want to see more violence incurred?

I don't think there is an easy answer. And I'm tired of everyone saying that the solution is clear as day.

Whether Americans take issue with it is not the issue at hand, and should not be the basis of your judgment.
Do I think it's right to censor a show on the ground that "Well, we just should"? Of course not.
Do I think it's right to encourage inflammatory media when the point is made already? Doing it twice, three times, or more, "Just because it's right" is equally irresponsible, and shows a considerable amount of naivety in my eyes.

It was the Muslims who encouraged the inflammatroy media. Had they lodged their protests and perhaps had some peaceful boycotts or something the entire issue would have long ago faded away. But their hysterical over reaction to a cartoon prompts the media to highlight the reason for their irrationality. They bring mocking and dersion on themselves by acting like such nut cases. It was right for the Danes and others to publish the cartoon. It is right to stand up against intimidation by a gang of psychotic zealots. It is right, not irresponsible, to stand up for freedom while exposing total intolerance and hypocrisy. These same Muslims have no problem publishing horribly anti-semetic cartoons in their papers.

The more we buckle to intimidation from those who threaten violence the more power over our society they will gain.

So if you find something that pisses off another, the only responsible course of action is to press their button.

I mean, if there was something that pissed you off, it'd only be natural to expect that people would do their damndest to do it. And hell, you'd deserve it too, because your beliefs would be laughable and dumb.

But seriously, I still want to know what antagonising and taunting them is supposed to accomplish.

That's not what this is about.

The goal here is to get these crazy people to realize that their ways are not acceptable in civilized society, plain and simple. On top of that, we're trying to show them that hypocracy is also unacceptable. As a previous poster stated, these zealots have no problem trashing Jews. Well, I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. There are plenty of catchy phrases that fit the situation.

Either way, giving in to them is not an option. Too many people have fought for and died for this country for us to give way to a bunch of raving lunatics now.

And had no one continued to post the cartoons in some kind of parody of support, I'm sure they would have. (You do recall the boycotts, don't you?) Which in turn would have opened the opportunity for a dialogue on why publishing the cartoons was not necessarily a condemnation of their religion.

Who? The rioters? Or Muslims in general? The distinction is important.

Intolerance. It's funny you should use that word, since the origin of this event is grounded in a refusal to hear the Muslims' side of the issue. In a perfect world, one in which people could read each others' minds, and understand their point of view immediately, everyone would understand that it was not so much the message of the cartoons as the act of posting them that was important. But it's not a perfect world. We have to have patience in dealing with people of other cultures, especially since we are a country that espouses tolerance for all.

Why does choosing not to publish images of Muhammad amount to high treason? A photographer can choose not to post pictures of gory death in Yugoslavia, because his values and his respect for the victims dictates as much. A Newspaper that chooses not to post pictures of the prophet Muhammad because they understand the religious basis and respect it should not be any of your fucking business to dictate to them.

There is the possibility that someone, somewhere out there is doing it because they fear a reprisal. To them, I'd suggest that they never should have gotten involved in the first place, because it illustrates their capacity (or lack thereof) to stand up for what they believe in. However, THIS IS NOT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE JUST BECAUSE YOU THINK IT IS.

Moreover, what they do with their papers is their business. You want a free press, you got one. So, you have to acknowledge that there is a line that needs to be drawn if you don't want to see inflammatory media. All or nothing, as Patty said, and which I happen to think is bullshit. (By the way, your stance here could easily be seen as hypocritical. But please continue.)

When I said Muslims I was only referring to the protestors, but its easier than always saying "the insane fanatical Muslim protestors"

I agree with you on the fact that the media often chooses what to print and what not to print. The point here is that the media is being cowed by the nut case Muslim fanatics. Comedy Central isn't suddenly getting a conscience and saying that a cartoon Mohammad is over the line. They are being intimidated by threats of violence. I'm sure there are many Christians who would be horrified at the end of the episode where Cartman forms a Christian rock band, where he curses Jesus in some of the most flagrant ways at the end. Or his romantic Jesus songs, one implying oral sex, would offend millions. But since there were no Christians threatening to kill Parker and Stone and no one was burning any embassies, Comedy Central though the material was just fine. Had Cartman said these things about Mohammad I think they would have been censored in fear of reprisal.

Your contention that inflammatory media is wrong is flawed because it isn't based on what is newsworthy or current, it is based on who screams the loudest on outrage. "If you give a mouse a cookie"....next the Muslims, oh, I'm sorry, radical fanatic nutcase Muslims, may insist that a telivised Christian preacher, who happens to give a sermon on what he considers the error of Islam be censored because he is being hateful towards Mohammad. Just protest and threaten to kill him, the network executives etc. and the network will fold.

Considering that the Prophet has already been featured in a South Park episode, (Super Best friends) with little fanfare or controversy it certainly isn't much of a stretch of the imagination to think in that manner.

Everybody is hypocritical. Relatively speaking, just because we consider our society civilized, it does not make their society uncivilized if we disagree on their standards of conduct. Nor does it mean that future societie's will view our society as civilized.

It's funny that a cartoon (or that nakie Super Bowl incident) could raise such ire over censorship. Especially when our television programming is so throughly saturated with censorship.

Even though Comedy Central isn't known to censor ANY of their shows in ANY fashion. Which is why I can always hear Stephen Colbert or Jon Stuart say the word "fuck". Oops, guess that example is out the window. Because if I did hear that the FCC would fine the hell out of Comedy Central. Furthermore, Comedy Central is owned by Viacom. Which also owns MTV. Which has to be the single most censored channel on television.