South Park vs Religion

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

Originally Posted by a_cat_is_fine_too

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.

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

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by a_cat_is_fine_too

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.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by dope

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?

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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.

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

Quote:

No legitimate reason?

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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."

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

Originally Posted by Adamgian

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.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Skexis

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.

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 kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

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

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

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?

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by PUG1911

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.

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

Originally Posted by Cyrus XIII

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

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

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.

Originally Posted by Skexis

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

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.

Originally Posted by Skexis

You heard right. The cartoons were made to test the waters.

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.

Originally Posted by Skexis

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.

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

Originally Posted by Skexis

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Skexis

And stop calling it "caving in."

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

Originally Posted by PUG1911

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.

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

Originally Posted by PUG1911

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.'

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.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

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.

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.

Originally Posted by dope

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.

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.

Originally Posted by dope

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.

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!

Originally Posted by Atomic Duck

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?

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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"

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

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

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."

Originally Posted by Atomic Duck

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.

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.

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

Quote:

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?

TV executives?

Quote:

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

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Skexis

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.

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

Originally Posted by Skexis

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.

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

Originally Posted by Skexis

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.

"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.

Originally Posted by Skexis

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."

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.

Originally Posted by Skexis

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.

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.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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

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.

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

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

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.

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.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

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.

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.

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