Image from LA Times
The Comedy Central show South Park is no stranger to controversy. In fact, in last week’s 200th episode, every celebrity South Park has ever made fun of – from Tom Cruise and Tiger Woods to George Lucas and even Mickey Mouse – came together to protest against the town, which they called, “a hotbed of hatred and lies.”
Last and this week’s episodes also dredged up far more real-life controversy when a U.S.-based Muslim group, Revolution Muslim, compared South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone to Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker, after they showed a character in a bear suit said to be the Prophet Muhammad. According to the NY Times, the post on the group’s website, written by Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee, said the episode “outright insulted” the prophet, adding:
We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.
For those of you who don’t know, Theo Van Gogh was killed in Amsterdam in 2004 after making a controversial film about the abuse of Muslim women in some societies. So, as much as Al-Amrikee insisted the message wasn’t an incitement for violence, it at least attempted to stir the pot of discontent, particularly since the group also attached a news article listing the home addresses of Stone and Parker, as well as a photo of the assassinated Van Gogh.
Comedy Central responded to the Revolution Muslim message by bleeping out any references to the Prophet Muhammad in the second of the two episodes. According to BBC News, “Wednesday’s 201st episode saw any spoken references to Muhammad bleeped out, while a prominent banner stating “censored” was used in the program. The images of the Prophet in a bear outfit were substituted with Santa Claus in the same costume.”
Via NYT: The South Park Studios Message on the Website
In the wake of the Danish cartoon controversy as well as the death of Van Gogh, television networks, newspapers, and film companies have learned to err on the side of caution, so as not to incite tensions and violence. But at what cost? The South Park development raises the raging debate over freedom of expression another notch. Yes, depicting the Muslim Prophet in a bear suit is disrespectful and would make most Muslims uncomfortable, but South Park as a show practices “universal discrimination” – everyone and everything is satirized, disrespected, and made fun of. In the case of the anniversary episodes, Stone and Parker also depicted a drug-snorting Buddha and a Jesus watching pornography.
Interestingly, this is not the first time South Park has depicted the Prophet Muhammad. In 2001, the show featured several religious figures and Prophets, including Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, and Prophet Muhammad, in an episode entitled, “Super Best Friends.” In the segment, Prophet Muhammad is a super hero with “the powers of flame,” who, when a character says, “Even though people fight and argue over different religions, you guys are actually friends,” he answers, “More than friends, we are super best friends with the desire to fight for justice.”
The episode obviously aired before the Danish cartoon controversy (a later attempt by Stone and Parker to air another Prophet Muhammad-related episode in 2006 was blocked by the network), but the difference between then and now is also an interesting commentary on a society much more on edge today. But it still begs the question – In our effort to remain politically correct, do we blur the line between freedom of expression and censorship? In the post-9/11 period, where Muslim stereotyping, prejudice, and anti-American sentiment have become a self-enforcing monster, how often do we lose sight of the bigger picture in our effort to maintain some semblance of order?
I am a Muslim and I am a fan of South Park. To make those terms mutually exclusive is polarizing and frankly, unproductive. Aasif Mandvi over at the Daily Show summarized my sentiment exactly when he said last night, “Yes, it [the depiction] would make me uncomfortable and I can understand people being upset about it…but here’s whats more upsetting. Someone, in the name of a faith that I believe in, threatening another person for doing it.”
Below is Stone and Parker’s interview with Boing Boing, incidentally before the 200th episode aired:
CHUP! - Changing Up Pakistan 
Pretty controversial issue.
i made my argument on this blog from the Atlantic under FHP. i think i made a good case that it was rightfully censored by Comedy Central.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/After-Muhammad-Censorship-Conservatives-Rally-Behind-South-Park-3335
Thanks Fahd,
I think shows like South Park and Family Guy often take it too far – and personally, I don’t think any network should be making fun of religious figures, mainly because of the disrespect factor and how people in a very polarized world can view it as polarizing and discriminatory. For that, I think Comedy Central was right in censoring it.
But what right do radical fringe groups have in making roundabout threatening remarks? Isn’t it interesting that other religious figures were mocked but didn’t illicit the same reaction? I hate even mentioning it because it makes it sound like a “What does this say about *us*” argument, when I feel you can’t lump the entire Muslim World together, but fringe groups have often been responsible for that.
i agree. i also said this in my Atlantic comment:
“this group “Revolution Muslim” is obviously moronic, is undermining legitimate arguments on the topic, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
“I don’t think any network should be making fun of religious figures, mainly because of the disrespect factor and how people in a very polarized world can view it as polarizing and discriminatory.”
Kalsoom
First I read and enjoy your blog. Kudos for the effort and intelligent articles.
Is your objection limited to TV or does it extend to all media, like books and Radio?
The reason I ask is that, I personally find several passages in the Holy Koran quite derisive and insulting of Non-Muslims. This is a tad more serious than South Park, because as everyone knows South Park is a comedy show known for its foul language. On the other hand, the Koran is revered and considered by ~1.5 Billion people to be the word of God and absolute truth. Since, arguably it has more influence than South Park, would someone, taking the sensibilities of the unbelievers like me into account, expunge these passages? A redaction with Black Ink would do.
Before everyone gets all worked up, I was playing the devil’s advocate to illustrate that Free Speech for some, is as sacred as religion for others. In fact, thinking further, isn’t it clear that the freedom of religion itself is rooted in freedom of speech? Now that people have the right and privilege of practicing their religion, (rooted in freedom of speech), should they use it to stifle the freedom of speech of others?
Fahd, in the link that you had provided, you make an argument that South Park should be censored because it “incites people”. That is funny. South Park just made jokes, the Fundamentalist group is the one who incited people into violence. By that measure, isnt it revolutionmuslim the one who should be censored? If you still believe that South Park was the one who incited people, following your line of thought, do you claim that women invite rape by dressing up scantily? Surely that is incitement for the rapists. Would you recommend that these women be locked up?
Before throwing around word like “incite” and “limitation to freedom of speech”, I suggest that people pause and think where their own rights & freedoms that they enjoy are coming from.
While Trey and Matt are total geniuses and pretty much masters at what they do, they need to be careful about who they satirize and how they do it.
Freedom of speech has certain ‘limits’ too, after all.
I find it odd when people say that “Freedom of speech has limits,” but apparently there are no limits to the violent reactions that some people choose to indulge in after that!
In this context, I believe the word choose to react is important. We’re all humans after all and I don’t think any Muslim loses control of his/her senses if they see an offending picture of Mohammed.
Additionally, South Park is a well known cartoon that sometimes tries to be as offensive as possible to everyone equally. Knowing this, if a person choose to watch South Park, I don’t think they have a right to complain about getting offended.
Who purposely touches a red hot stove, gets burned, and then complains that the stove was hot?
I think it’s insanity that the media gave (revolution muslim.com or whatever that blog’s name is) so much coverage for their threat.
WHO CARES what they think? It’s like wondering what the KKK would think about the election of Barak Obama, does anyone really need to air those views? Do they even matter? Doesn’t it cause more harm by mainstreaming these views and making it more accessible to those who otherwise would never have heard of this group in the first place?
If anything happens to the South Park creators, I think the media would be partly to blame for fanning these otherwise insignificant flames and hysterics of a group of lunatics who represent nothing but hatred for a nation, and a set of values which they exploit by living in, and then daring to rail against.
that’s a good point.
If the KKK was still carrying out active lynchings, they’d probably get more mainstream media attention.
Referencing Theo Van Gogh is probably a decent chunk of what’s driving the media attention.
AHHHHHH! Everyone wants black & white answers to every social issue or controversy…that’s not possible! South Park is known for it’s blatant criticism of all types of conformity, establishments, religions. I agree with you that although it is uncomfortable to watch – they have the right to do what they please. JUST DON’T WATCH IT. Can you stop everyone from thinking or speaking what they want?? HELL NO! So what makes anyone in America think that they can threaten someone for using the very rights that they, themselves came here to attain?? I am so sick of people like the founder of Revolution Muslim condemning America and its institutions, all the while living here. If my understanding of Islam is correct, it requires you to pledge your Patriotic allegiance to the country of residence – so Mr. Revolution Muslim – are you not then sinning??? What a shame that a group calling itself “Revolution Muslim” is instead taking the perception of Islam and it’s followers BACKWARDS!!! What ‘revolution” do you speak of because it’s sure as hell not the kind we need! Defend your Prophet (PBUH) and your religion by conducting yourself in a manner that will attract others in a loving, kind, and spiritual way – you FREAKIN’ FOOLS! Quit making life harder than it already is!
Freedom of speech doesn’t have limits beyond incitement of hatred and in certain countries, libel.
I think CC caving was not a good idea.
As Kalsoom said, South Park is pretty indiscriminate.
Fahd, your argument for censorship seems to be based on the notion that SP is inciting hatred by continously going after muslims (forgive the reductionism, but I don’t think I’ve missed any substantial nuance). In my opinion that’s pretty off the mark. It is as someone else said, censorship bait. Parker and Stone are juvenile like that, and they will keep pushing the relevant buttons in order to see what gets censored and what doesn’t. Aside from that, if you watched the two episodes you’ll realize it’s sort of an homage to all the more prominent aspects of their storylines (gingers, tenorman, mitch connor etc).
Anyway, considering how a considerable amount of muslims view judaism or christianity (zakir naik has uncomfortably large audiences), I think it’s pretty rich when any muslim throws a strop about the prophet Muhammad being mocked. Just because his image isn’t allowed so to speak in our religion doesn’t mean the same applies to everyone else.
Ultimately we’re just asking for them to ‘respect’ our dogma. Which is kind of flimsy.
When I read about this I cringed and thought “here we go again.” There is a fine line between censorship and freedom of expression. But does this mean that in the interest of freedom of expression, anything goes and is allowed to be aired? Sometimes censorship is necessary to maintain order. (And I don’t mean censuring political riots or human rights violations. I’m talking about cartoons people)
The fact that the second episode of the two-part episode was censored highlights the fact that as a society we have become more sensitive to religious blurs along with maintaining our sensitivity to racial ones. Personally, I think Comedy Central did the right thing. Times have changed from 2001 to 2010. Infuriating Muslims worldwide, including American-Muslims (conservative and liberal alike) is counterproductive to a larger goal, which is to increase understanding of Islam in the Western world. You can’t do that if you make fun of the religion.
Also, I’ve always had a problem with South Park’s “universal discrimination” and it’s not because I’m Muslim, and certainly not because I’m a liberal. Just because they make fun of everyone and everything still doesn’t make it right. I know some people who find the show offensive. In a way, their irreverence fuels insensitivity within a society and could be seen as fueling stereotypes, rather than knocking them down. For the United States, this is even more problematic because American society is a melting pot of religions, nationalities, and identities from all over the world. Not to say that I haven’t laughed during South Park…it’s just not my cup of chai. Don’t hate me South Park lovers!
Sahar,
Why is it upto the Western world and the western world only to go out of its way to understand Islam. I fail to understand why is it not a two way street.
If south park makes fun of Jesus in a christian majority nation and it does not need to beep stuff, why is it then required to appease Muslims.
As someone already mentioned, there is a lot of negative stuff written about Non-Muslims in Quran. I, as a Non-Muslim, has a right to be offended. However, thats where my right end. I cannot threaten life and property. All I can do (and is doing) is NOT to read Quran.
If South Park starts making fun of all religions except Islam, some other Islamic group might get offended by this “isolation” and again threaten life and property. What then?
The network beeped references to PBUH NOT out of any respect or any understanding about Islam that it might have developed. It did it because of fear. Fear of repercussions, fear to their life and property.
Tell me, how does this help in reducing the mis-understanding of Islam by the Western world.
In my view, the gap only widens.
“The fact that the second episode of the two-part episode was censored highlights the fact that as a society we have become more sensitive to religious blurs along with maintaining our sensitivity to racial ones.”
Comedy Central didn’t censor the episode out of racial or religious tolerance… they did it out of fear, pure and simple.
If they censored based on tolerance and respect, why not censor Buddha snorting coke? Because Buddhists aren’t threatening to kill people over a cartoon.
That’s the point, that’s whats wrong with the whole situation, caving in to threats of violence. Giving in to threats just brings more threats.
I watched this episode with Mixed Feelings last week. I didnt know if it was right or wrong of me but then the whole theme of the episode was to poke fun at how sensitive we can get about these things.
I think that’s exactly it shobz – making fun of people who can’t get made fun of. Right or wrong.
Oh KL, yet another fun post on your blog.
For all those that oppose, don’t watch it. Don’t watch it because you are morally opposed to the overall content of the show. The show does not discriminate about whom they make fun of. They make fun of all religions, men and women of any color race background sexual orientation, soual issues, political issues, you name it they’ve done it and they’ve been doing so for 200 episodes. And frankly who cares? It doesn’t make any difference to me or my faith or beliefs.
In regards to revolution Muslims or whatever their name is, spend the 20 bucks it takes to renounce your citizenship and leave my country and move somewhere where the social ideology as well as political is the same as your own backwards agenda. I live a very comfortable healthy life as a Pakistani Muslim woman in the US and I have to fight for that every day because a bunch of morons like this group unfortunately coexist in this society.
[…] came together to protest against the town, which they called, […] Read more at: CHUP! – Changing Up Pakistan 201st, abu talhah, comedy central, controversial film, creators trey parker, dutch filmmaker, […]
KL: Thanks for raising the decibel level on this issue. The one silver lining to this ‘revolutionary’ cloud is that it gives the silent/dormant muslim majority within the US an opportunity to break that silence and condemn, in unequivocal terms, the intolerance and emotional infancy of groups such as Revolution Muslim that purport to represent ‘authentic’ Islam in the US. While I agree with SD that constantly defying stereotypes can be wearisome, I feel that the SP saga gives progressive muslims a ‘perfect storm’ to reclaim their religion from intolerant and unrepresentative (but loud and expressive) groups such as RM. Bring it on!
South Park has made fun of Jesus in a Christian Majority country and nobody gets death threat. Some may condemn it but nobody threatens the writers or the producers. Why is the Muslim world so stuck up? Lately its showing signs of being a cult more than a Religion,more than a way to find meaning in life.
I actually think your contention is problematic though. Why is it that one fringe, hardline group automatically is blown up to represent the “Muslim World”? We’re so fragmented that it’s impossible to make gross generalizations like that, but I do think that points further to the problem. When the KKK makes a racist statement about African Americans – it’s not seen as all white people, it’s seen as a hardline group. How do we get back to the nuanced issue at hand?
Kalsoom,
Point taken.
I agree that I should not generalize. But, all the influential voices in the Muslim world,particularly Arab states, be it the Mullahs in Iran, Saudi Arabia,etc who actually control the state speak in a tongue not recognizable to ordinary Muslims in,say, Pakistan. That is where the problem lies. People dont have a voice, they give up that power to a small set of people who govern them. This group is violent, repressive and anti-non-muslim.
Lets take the tiny majority in Pakistan who rule the state. They have not,till date, removed the Hudood Ordinance, even though that piece of legislation is barbaric and anti-women and anti-minorities. The rulers dont touch this piece of legislation to not to annoy the extremist parties. In Pakistan the military is heavily tilted to the right and that is a big problem.
The word ‘Muslim world’ does not refer to the people directly but to the corridors of power in the lands.
Another point I want to make is I get this impression that the sacred text of Muslims is terribly open to violent interpretation because I see so many quoting the words from it. I have not read it so I will not say much. Hope my perception is not the truth.
All the best.
Kalsoom,
This is an interesting question. To start with, I think that people are responsible for their individual actions & stereotyping is just intellectually laziness.
Having said that, the practices of any group of people, not in accordance with social zeitgeist should be reformed from within. Any external action will simply be construed as interference with their practices. The case in point is the French veil ban. If some Saudi cleric had come up with the same bad, there would have been zero controversy.
Given that, I have a complaint to make. The Muslim majority frequently cites its disapproval of the violent minority and the fact that moderates dont practice violence, as proof for the fact that the society is reforming or they are doing their part for reform. This is ludicrous. Take our favorite example – KKK. They were defeated by the civil rights movement, the legislation of LBJ, laws for desegregation, equality in employment & housing.
Americans didnt just sit back and say, yes the KKK are violent, but bulk of us dont believe in their ideology. They stood up and succeeded in defeating their ideology. That is why they are not considered to be a single group, who are allied with the distasteful elements in the society, either through tacit support or convenient indifference. The same case with Christians. Church & State are separate, bulk of modern law making is divorced from theology. This transformation was by the Christians. That is why nobody regards them as one monolithic group.
Yes there is still toxic words & actions in these societies. But nobody can accuse them of inaction?!
The rest of the world though is confused about the Muslim society. Laws imposed from outside — the current South Park controversy for example — is taken as evidence of interference, or an attempt to impose alien values or worse, an organized conspiracy to ostracize Muslims. On the other hand, transformation does not seem to be happening from inside either.
So either everyone is scared, or they tacitly support these activities or they are blissfully indifferent. This conclusion does not help towards recognizing the fragmentation of ideas & ideologies in the Muslim world
I agree with what you’re saying, and I think it further emphasizes the fact that the “Muslim World” is more an enforced label than an actual reality. Many people will come out against hardline groups like Revolution Muslim, but the sound doesn’t ring as one loud voice of condemnation because Muslims throughout the world are fragmented, as you mentioned. It’s a sad state of affairs frankly.
Frankly I am not sure how much I buy into this idea that images of Mohammed are blasphemous. If that’s true, how does one explain this?
http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/
The creators of South Park are NOT muslims. Please understand this. It is forbidden for MUSLIMS and muslims only to “depict” Muhammed .
We, as non muslims, *can* depict him. If you don’t like it, you should not watch.
How did your right to get offended became bigger than my right to freedom of speech?
I’m looking forward to Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!
http://tinyurl.com/draw-mohammed-day
/* start rant*
Freedom of speech means you are free to say anything. It does not mean you are free from criticism. The limit should not be on what is said, but what is heard. So if you feel insulted by this. Don’t listen/read/watch whatever is bothering you. Everyone has the freedom to choose not to listen to something. Just because something is out there doesnt mean you have to watch it. You’re never going to stop people from making something you dont like. My parents wouldnt let me watch movies with swearing in them when i was growing up. This didnt mean people stopped making them.
*end rant */
Just because you have to right to say what ever you want doesn’t mean you should. Offending people just to prove a point makes no sense. You can’t change peoples minds by insulting what they hold dear. No one is taking anyones freedoms away. Respecting someone can only help in developing good relations. Extremists are a minority, but even the majority of Muslims will feel offended, why? Because not only have their countries been bombed and civilians murdered, now their beliefs are being attacked. I just hope there are no violent protests and Muslims respond to this rationally and not violently.
If we can’t offend people then there can be no speech. I am offended by plenty of things various people say and find them reprehensible — does that mean they should be banned? If anyone is offended by something then it should be banned? If this is the new standard then free speech is dead.
And yes, freedom is being taken away. If you threaten to kill someone over something they say, their freedom is diminished. This is obvious.
Lastly, how are Muslim beliefs being attacked? Seems to me most politicians fall all over themselves to declare their respect for Islam as a religion of peace, while pop culture is similarly deferential (e.g. The Sum of All Fears movie being re-written so that the terrorists are modern day Nazis rather than Palestinians). Evangelical Christians in contrast are a regular target for mockery — perhaps they should start issuing some death threats.
And as far as Muslim countries being bombed and murdered, let’s recall that most Muslims are being murdered and bombed by other Muslims (Taliban, Al Qaeda in Iraq, Sunni extremists in Iraq, etc). And where was the outrage when Muslims were being butchered by the Taliban in soccer stadiums as a public spectacle in the 1990s, or tortured and killed in Iraqi prisons under Saddam? This is not a defense of the killing of civilians by Western militaries, but another illustration of an apparent double standard.
“Just because you have to right to say what ever you want doesn’t mean you should. Offending people just to prove a point makes no sense.”
The right to say whatever I want means that nobody decides what I can or cannot, should or should not say! Given that “Just because you have the right to say anything you please, does not mean you can say anything to please” has several contradictions built into the same sentence.
Let me give you a simpler explanation:
Is there a limit on what people can get offended by? Why protest against the Swiss Minaret ban then? Maybe the Swiss are offended by minarets dotting their landscape. Or maybe the french are offended by the face veil and that is why they want to ban them. Maybe I can take offense at “La ilaha ilallah” because I believe in a different God. Can I ban people from saying that?! You know that it deeply hurts my religious beliefs when someone says “There is no god but Allah” – because I believe in some other God who insists that he is the one true God. “Mohammad-un–rasul-allah” also deeply offends me because I am still waiting for the second coming. Maybe we should ban people from saying that?
“No one is taking anyones freedoms away.”
This again is a load of Bull. Why did Theo get his throat slit? Salman Rushdie still lives underground? Taslima Nasreen is going from place to place? Ayaan Hirsi has 24×7 police protection?
Have you read Dan Brown’s novel “Angels & Demons” and “DaVinci Code” – if any body had written such fiction about the Prophet, he would have gone Salman Rushdie’s way!! Freedoms are being taken away by threat of violence and murder! That is the truth.
“Extremists are a minority, but even the majority of Muslims will feel offended”
This is just a coded way of saying “You have your hands full with a violent minority, imagine what will happen if the majority of us also become violent or refuse to rein in the violent minority”
And then people wonder why Muslims are being treated as one group!
Taking offense by means of mockery, ridicule. This applies to all religions, not just Islam. Saying “La ilaha ilallah” or waiting for the second coming is simply practicing your faith. A child usually says whatever comes to his/her mind but their parents teach them that you have to be mindful of others and can’t always say whatever you want. Freedom of speech is not suppressed but rather common sense, decency and mutual respect are exercised.
Umar,
Parents don’t give veiled threats to the children to toe the line.
And parents do not go out of their way to tell the neighbors kids to be, as you put it, mindful of others.
Nobody is stopping you from being offended. However, thats where your rights end.
The debate, atleast in my mind, is not so much that South Park offended Muslims but about the bigger question of freedom of speech.
A few centuries ago it was widely believed Earth was the center of the solar system and it was blasphemous to think or say otherwise.
Propagating the idea that it was Sun and not Earth would have offended many many people.
So, please be offended as much as you like but do not automatically assume what offends you offends all and therefore has to be banned.
Even if it offends all, it should not be banned.
Zvi,
Fabulous point.
“Maybe I can take offense at “La ilaha ilallah” because I believe in a different God.”
Genius!
You are right, Muslims have been bombing and killing civilians in massive numbers for some time. Its almost daily that I hear about some innocent civilians, usually Muslims being blown to bits by some other Muslim. You would think they would tire of the extremism. But I digress….
The problem is the definition of Muslim extremist. If you look at Islamic nations, they have some fairly extreme laws that run in complete opposition to the beliefs found in the U.S. constitution: legalized rape, state sponsored sexism, conversion to another religion a crime, lack of freedom of expression, child brides, etc.. These long-standing laws exist and are supported in almost every Islamic nation. To me, and a great many other non-believers, this shows that the extremist are basically everyday, ordinary Muslims. After 9-11, I saw thousands of ordinary Muslims celebrating in the street, but I won’t even get into that.
Bottom line, either your idea of “extreme” is completely different from that of a non-believer, or you are all slaves to the extremists, who apparently have complete control of your governments. Which is it?
Muslims can exist peacefully in the United States under its constitution, the Constitution could never exist in a country where Muslims are the majority. Simply look at the laws of any Islamic nation with a sharia based legal system.
Its easy to see why we don’t buy the “its only the extremists” argument. I know there are some really nice, “progressive” (confused) Muslims out there, but I would venture to say that they are the true extremists in that religion.
As further evidence I think of how just how artificial this controversy seems to me, let’s remember that South Park depicted Mohammed in a July 2001 episode and the response was basically a bunch of crickets chirping. It was only when the Danish cartoons were relesed that this suddenly became a big deal.
Definitely – both Parker and Stone made that point in the Boing Boing interview – before the Danish cartoon controversy and really before 9/11, it wasn’t as much of an issue because being “Muslim” wasn’t as much under attack in the pre-9/11 world. The feeling of marginalization and the self-enforcing phenomenon of stereotyping and anti-American sentiment didn’t really come about until recently.
Hey Guys,
One of our mad dog called M.F. Hussain lost when he was taken for nature calls on a fine morning. I am sure either he landed up behind this show or would have bitten some creative genius of this show.
Anybody found him would be rewarded with him permanently!!
I am a huge fan of South Park. I thought the episode was brilliant. I actually thought the censorship was done on purpose and added to the social commentary. However, I watched in suspense hoping they wouldn’t show any image of the Prophet Muhammad because I was scared that some extremist group would come out and make a threatening statement-further strengthening the Muslim/violence stereotype.
I mean the plot behind censoring Prophet Muhammad on the episode was to show that no matter what, his image cannot be ridiculed- which I actually thought was a positive thing. However, knowing how Matt and Trey write, they knew by even showing a positive message of the Prophet will end up with negative controversy. Social commentary on religion and the whole yours vs. mine.
They will almost always show positives vs. negatives in any issue they pick on.
And because of the censorship, technically the words Muhammad weren’t said, there was no image, and it was nothing merely than Santa in a bear suit…they left it up to assumption. A perfect media trap.
Right – but they changed it to Santa in a bear suit only after Comedy Central & South Park came under fire for the 200th episode – the plot was then changed.
Umar Ali-
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”
Define abridge: reduce in scope while retaining essential elements.
I.e. it is unconstitutional to censor a broadcast of even the most hardcore pornography, featuring the prophet, even over public airwaves.
“I.e. it is unconstitutional to censor a broadcast of even the most hardcore pornography, featuring the prophet, even over public airwaves.”
Except Comedy Central isn’t Congress, they’re a free corporation and are free to censor what they wish.
Ur absolutely right… private censorship is perfectly fine.
But government censorship does exist in the form of the FCC – an unconstitutional entity that usurps authority to block specific words and images.
That being said, Comedy Central is shameless and cowardly.
As a christian, I find it quite insulting that the islamic faith believes that Jesus was not the literal son of god. How should my rights to religion interact with yours?
Great dialogue here.
What I find very interesting here, and something that I think has gone a bit untouched, is how easy Matt and Trey went on the prophet by their standards. As mentioned, in the episode, Jesus watches pornography and Buddha does cocaine — obviously extremely offensive images to each religion, but both are still shown.
Intentionally, the animators never had the prophet doing anything sinful or bad. He merely stands there but his name and image are bleeped out.
People need to remember that Matt and Trey are touching broader censorship concerns that are very much an issue in this world, something that Revolution Muslim brought more into focus with their veiled death threat. They aren’t trying to attack Islam by focusing on the prophet (there are far more offensive ways they could have done it), they are attacking the idea that anyone has a right to restrict what they, as non-believers, are able to express.
Great point…I was trying to make a similar one, but couldn’t quite phrase it.
[…] The South Park Controversy « CHUP! – Changing Up Pakistan. 0 […]
[…] Not all Muslims are Islamofascists! What’s the next shoe to drop? Not all Christians are in fact Christofascists? Or all priests […]
First, If freedom of speech means freedom to say anything then is not that group (Muslim Revolution or whatever) free to say anything? If we use the same rule, then you should not buy whatever they say. Just ignore them like you want muslims to ignore the depiction of prophet in South Park.
Second, there are several issues such as “Holocaust” , “9.11”, etc which are too sensitive to discuss in public media. Now imagine, if someone makes fun of these issues and then claims that freedom of speech is my right then will you accept that? Obviously not!
It is not about protest against blasphemy of islamic prophet. Whether it is Buddha, Jesus Christ, or Mary, an offense like such is likely to create turmoil in the society where people belonging to different religions live together.
I agree to the point that if you dont like the depiction of the prophet, then dont watch South Park and any type of threat should be condemned. However, like you cannot call a person “stupid” on his/her face (in fear of hurting his/her fealings), you should not print, publish or broadcast anything which can hurt the feelings of millions of people.
“If freedom of speech means freedom to say anything then is not that group (Muslim Revolution or whatever) free to say anything?”
No, because you can’t ignore a death threat. You’re compelled to take preventive measures. You can however happily ignore South Park episodes as well as Mohammed being shown on TV. You’re not getting hurt and you can go on with your life as usual.
Giving a death threat means the other person has to change their way of life to take precautions – and that is intruding on another person and is so beyond the protection of freedom of speech.
This post was mentioned on artsyHANDS:
http://artsyhands.com/2010/05/20th-may-draw-mohammad-day-and-facebook-boycotts/
[…] the South Park controversy came and went, but no one really noticed it much since Comedy Central decided they didn’t want to […]
@JS
Freedom of Speech does not extend to inciting violence and hatred against others. Depicting the prophet Muhammud is not allowed within the Muslim faith but is allowed by other groups. Showing this image is certainly NOT a way of inciting hatred, whilst calling on radical groups to strike out against Trey Parker and Matt Stone is.
It is not the place of a Muslim minority to enforce its dogma (not depicting Muhammud) on the rest of society.
What I particularly loved about this episode of SP was the way Trey and Matt played with the idea of Freedom of Speech. They asked the audience when showing a stick drawing of Muhummad “is this allowed?” A similar question was raised when they showed Muhammud in a Bear Costume. These depictions satirized the idea of watered down FoS laws, which in effect should be an all or nothing philosophy. There is no such thing as “not being ripped on”, there is no such thing as “some things you can’t and some things you can say”. Within a free society that upholds freedom of speech – EVERYTHING is fair game.
Great thread btw.
they should never have censored the episode, south park is designed to make all these huge problems appear as they are… childish.
the minute its not ok to rip on someone or something because of how it will affect people means its not ok to rip on anyone else.
because of this other groups will flare up and demand they have things that offend them censored, not just in south park but everywhere, for christ’s sake you cant even teach “Ba Ba Black Sheep” anymore. children cant wear crucifixes in schools and people are in the middle of trying to ban burkas.
its a cartoon at the end of the day, a cartoon that you dont have to watch and its not like they hide the fact that the show is offensive. so stop winging about how its offensive, being offended doesnt hurt people, its not like they’re going to wake up with leprosy because they were offended.
political correctness and fear of violence is no reason to stifle peoples opinions on global issues.