South Park censored again

Once again South Park has been censored when it threatened to display images of Muhammad.

When news that a radical Muslim website had threatened the creators of the series,(Making reference to murder of Theo Van Gogh) it promted the Network into action.

The shows creators refussed to back down and sent the episode in question to Comedy Central "as is" only to have the network edit out not only certian images, but all mentions of the Prophet as well as entire sequences in the shows plot.

Many fans assumed all the bleeps and blurred images and censorship boxes were a ruse as part of the show by Stone and Parker, an attempt to show how ridiculous the world would be if we had to censor the smallest things.

However according to the shows creators:

"In the 14 years we've been doing 'South Park,' we have never done a show that we couldn't stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central, and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn't some meta-joke on our part."

To see it unedited fans will most likely have to wait for it on DVD.

But that is besides the point.

Why is it...that the threat of violence illicits a different responce where as cencorship is concerned from the network or anyone else for that matter?

Is it not just panderering to those who use violence and promoting their agenda when you cave in to such a thing?

Views anyone?

"It does no one any good to have your head cut off. I may fear you, but do not think for a second that I respect you." - Richard Dawkins

The god of Islam is apparently a weak, egocentric thug who cannot tolerate a little criticism or ridicule. Those who promote violence in his name, or in the name of their fictitious founder, Mohammad, only serve to bring shame upon themselves and upon those who tolerate their violence.

There are many people in the world today who are hiding from these vile bastards because they had the temerity to ridicule them. When the Muslim people begin reining these monsters in, when the Muslim governments start prosecuting them for the violence they promote, then perhaps we can begin to regard Islam as the peaceful religion they would have us believe.

But those governments are too busy prosecuting people for witchcraft, or sorcery, or torturing women because they had the audacity to allow themselves to be raped. Or forcing 11 year old girls to marry their 80 year old cousin because he was able to pay a $22,000 "dowry" to her father.

If the Muslim people want to be respected, and not feared, they need to drag their medieval religion into the 21st century. Until then, the best they can hope for is ridicule and hate.

And the same goes for the religious idiots here in the US who would enslave women because of some fictional stories written a couple of thousand years ago. While their own women may fear them, the rest of the country, and the civilized world, know them for what they are: misogynistic assholes who cannot feel like men unless they have a woman to control, or terrorize, or simply beat up on.

And to answer your question: Yes, when those who have power, such as governments and religious leaders, cave into the demands of these monsters it is pandering, as well as aiding and abetting murder. When running the networks cave, perhaps it is only an effort to protect themselves and their employees from the retaliation which might be propagated against them.

A more important question comes up, though. The group which issued the threats is located in New York City! Why the hell hasn't the city, state and/or federal justice systems jumped on them with both feet? It couldn't be because they are a religious organization, could it?

While I don't personally care for South Park, I abhor censorship in any form.

If Trey Parker & Matt Stone told the network: "Look, we're not comfortable airing the episode as is due to the death threats," and said episode was subsequently altered? Cool. If the network told TP & MS: "Hey guys, we can't air this one as is and changes must be made, or we can't air it;" leave the decision up to the creators. But to alter SP's content without their knowledge or consent is wrong and (i.m.h.o.) a violation Free Speech.

*Note: One thing I do like about South Park? It panders to no one; equal opportunity satire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

A more important question comes up, though. The group which issued the threats is located in New York City! Why the hell hasn't the city, state and/or federal justice systems jumped on them with both feet? It couldn't be because they are a religious organization, could it?

---

I'm not sure a threat constitutes an illegal act. A conspiracy to do harm does. And for all we know, those very authorities may be investigating...

Meanwhile, the ACLU should be stepping up and suing.

They may have their figurative panties tied in a knot though... Religious Freedom AND Freedom of Speech on one side... Freedom of Speech on the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

I'm not sure a threat constitutes an illegal act. A conspiracy to do harm does. And for all we know, those very authorities may be investigating...

---

I can understand that someone saying, in a moment of passion, "I'm gonna kill you!" should not be considered a crime. But someone who writes out a warning, explicitly and calmly, saying that performing a certain act will make you a target, that is a crime. It's at least an infringement of someone else's right to free speech. And yes, the authorities may be investigating. Chances are that group has been under surveillance for quite a while now.

And I apologize to the group for going off on a rant earlier. It just drives me nuts when people like this hide behind their presumed moral authority to justify killing, terrorizing, torturing and enslaving people, all in the name of their prophet, god or savior.

Anyway here's a video that seems relevant.

About this issue, I believe that Jon Stewart addresses this in a more eloquent way that I ever would be able to... so I'll share the link.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...-death-threats

To be fair, Islam is the new archetype for bigotry, radicalism and xenophobia. Muslims aren't ALL blood crazed nuts who intend to eradicate the western world. Unfortunately, the more media exposed groups are more prone to be holding an AK-47 and screaming verses of the Qur'an.

However, such people can be found in all walks of life, or is any other religious or cultural group free of an intolerant faction? Sadly, the answer is no.
I'm not a Muslim but I've been lucky enough to meet a few and trust me, they aren't wife beaters, happy executioners or daughter selling retrogrades.
Stereotypes must be viewed with care. They are usually blown out of proportion representations of the many based on the faults of a few.

On the subject of freedom of speech... There's absolutely NO JUSTIFICATION to remove topics of discussion from the table, especially if it's religion or politics.
Being free includes listening to the opinion of others and choose to ascent or dissent. To be free does not mean, imo, to have the opportunity to shut somebody up and take it.

Respectfully,

FS

islam today is catholisism a few hundred years ago. replace jihad with crusade and death to the infidels to the holy land for the righteous. same difference. they will have their first major reformation soon enough its inevitable. it may take a few more decades but its coming, the signs already point to it. muslims the world over are starting to publicly reject this foolishness. and after the reformation we should be good for a century or three heh , i really cant see hindus in this bullshit.

Well this isnt really about religion at all so much as giving in to censorship; in paticular allowing threats of violence to influence its use.

i think this particular incident and many others if it were a threat to violence by a non islamic group the episode would likely have aired so unfortunately i think it is a very much about islamic violence not censorship per say or giving in to threats generally. its specifically islamic in focus. many radical groups issue warnings of violence but people dont stand for it but with islamic groups its diffwerent i think honestly we all accept that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Qza

i think this particular incident and many others if it were a threat to violence by a non islamic group the episode would likely have aired so unfortunately i think it is a very much about islamic violence not censorship per say or giving in to threats generally. its specifically islamic in focus. many radical groups issue warnings of violence but people dont stand for it but with islamic groups its diffwerent i think honestly we all accept that

---

But that's precisely the point. We should NOT accept it! We should ridicule these groups, and their silly beliefs. If everyone is ridiculing them, their threats become meaningless. They become exposed for the bullies they are.

It's just like bullies at school. As long as everyone's afraid of them, they can do what they want. If everyone gangs up on them, protecting one another from the bullies, they no longer have the power to do any harm.

then why do we accept it, while at the same time rejecting other threats that are just as violent and public? We have to be honest here we accept it becuase its an islamic threat. People now see islam itself [ i am generalising ofcourse] as a threat. The radicals are just seen as organs of islam, islam itself is whats not trusted. just look around you, people are wary of muslims they have known and trusted for all their lives. its not about the individual groups. unless islam itself is reformed no one is going to stop accepting anything, thats the fact.

You (both) miss the issue/concern. Some threats are merely that, threats. Some are more like warnings/promises.

While all threats are a matter for concern, most people are all bluff and posture. But once a threat is carried out, the next threat must be treated differently.

I don't condone the network execs' actions... but I understand them. It's not because the threat is an Islamic threat per se... it is because the fanatics professing to represent Islam have shown they will act on their threats.

That changes everything if you have responsibilities to others, (let alone your own personal love of life.) I would be just as outraged if I was put at risk working the front counter while that executive sat safely on the top floor.

That said, those who accept compensation for "protecting" us have a duty now to pursue the perpetrators of this threat to the full extent the law allows, lest it embolden the threateners and those who watch them... just as we did following the oklahoma city bombing (a non-islamic action.)

The follow-on threats were treated with the same level of concern as in this case, imo.