South Park vs Religion

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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

*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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Skexis

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.

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?

Most amazing jew boots

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

FELIPE NO

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Watts

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.

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?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Wesker

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?

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?

Originally Posted by Wesker

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

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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 am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Wesker

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Skexis

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Skexis

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.

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!

Originally Posted by Skexis

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

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.

Originally Posted by Skexis

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Wesker

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?

Exactly. QFT.

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

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.

Bingo. Also QFT.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

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.

Originally Posted by Wesker

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.

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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.

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?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by PUG1911

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.

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.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

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?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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.

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.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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!

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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.

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.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Timmy

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?

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Skexis

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by PUG1911

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

That's not what this is about.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

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.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Wesker

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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.)

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

That's not what this is about.

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.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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.

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.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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.

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.

Most amazing jew boots