11 ms·
Not Even In South Park?
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- lanstein 16y agoPuerile. Flashback to Latin class :)
- simon_ 16y agoI seriously doubt it would have been "just as censored". That wasn't their message, but Trey and Matt have had no trouble parodying the US military in the past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_America:_World_Police http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_America:_World_Police.
- clusterfu_k 16y agoits easy to say something like that, but if you have seen enough south park you would know that they dont really draw any lines. in the south park film they take black soldiers and strap them to tanks as "protection" to the tanks. they show spielberg and lucas literally raping indiana jones. they have entire episodes dedicated to bashing scientology, mormonism, judaism, and catholicism. an insecure, weak-willed jesus is a reoccurring character. a singing piece of shit is the christmas mascot. there have been enough reasons for people to protest against south park, and they have, but never do they go as far as censoring characters except when muhammad is concerned. (to be fair, they do censor words that they consider extreme profanity [on occasion])
- roc 16y agoI believe "Team America: World Police" covered that ground. "Cowardly", "stupid", "inept bumbling fools", even "homosexual" -- it accused the entire military apparatus of being everything they insist they aren't. I don't recall it being censored. Or protested. That said, it didn't air on TV either.
- bmm6o 16y ago> That said, it didn't air on TV either. Not true. I watched TA:WP uncut on Comedy Central. I kept thinking, "well, they'll have to cut that scene" but they showed the whole thing.
- jamesbressi 17y agoSkip to the 6th paragraph if you already know the back story and want to read the actual Op-Ed piece.
- theotherside 16y agoShowing respect is "cowering"? That is really insecure. Even on the terms of the editorial itself I find it hard to be upset. On one hand we have the the general acceptance of defamation and borderline pedophilia, on the other uncouth and outmoded honour and unreproachable symbols. Obviously it is our holy mission to desensitize the other side.
- locopati 16y agoAnd a well-stated counterpoint http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/26/douthat/index.html http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/26...
- illumin8 16y agoI don't think the counterpoint is as valid as you say it is. Receiving some hate mail and phone calls about a "gay Jesus" character is a lot different than killing someone. There are some small similarities between extremist Christians and extremist Muslims. Bombing of abortion clinics comes to mind, however, let's not pretend that a strongly worded email or phone call is anything like killing a cartoonist because he drew the wrong picture.
- Alex3917 16y ago"Receiving some hate mail and phone calls about a 'gay Jesus' character is a lot different than killing someone." Threatening to burn down the theatre, kill the staff, and kill the director strikes me as more than a strongly worded email. See fundamentalists like to use what I'd call the sandwich method. First you threaten to kill someone, then you kill them, and then you take credit for killing them. These threats seem pretty clearly like step 1.
- illumin8 16y agoI'm just drawing the distinction between threats, which many crazies are known to leave, and actual killing. Had the theatre actually been burned down, actors/directors killed, you might have a better point.
- DannoHung 16y agoDoesn't that just mean that the really crazy ones in each religion are pissed off at different things?
- sabat 16y agoYes. But the important difference here is in the actual murders -- the act of going beyond threats. I have a hard time taking that as a minor distinction.
- njharman 16y agoAre people this short memoried / one sided / blind? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ Others http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_controversies#Visual_arts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_controversies#Visual_... And go ask the grieving families of abortion doctors if they think only Islamic fundies murder for their religion?
- praptak 16y agoPiss Christ as a counterexample? So what exactly have the fundies achieved in this case, compared to blacking-out of Mohammad by CN?
- sabat 16y agoPiss Christ didn't inspire any murders that we know about, but he's got a good point about the ongoing abortion clinic killings.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago>the ongoing abortion clinic killings Which ones? The pro-abortion or anti-abortion ones?
- praptak 16y agoNot really. The point of the article is not that only Muslims kill for religion but that their tactic is disturbingly effective in getting what they want (speech suppression.) Abortion clinic killings have not achieved anything comparable.
- adelevie 16y agoThe issue with Piss Christ was government funding. I doubt anyone is in danger for their lives for Piss Christ.
- evo_9 16y agoMan I would love a real Super Best Friends t-shirt (and not the cheap rip-offs on cafepress right now or the the one with the black censor box). Funny, I was just watching an illegal stream of SouthPark over the weekend and they showed the original superbest friends ep and there was no censorship at all on Muhammed. In fact, they treated him kind of cool, if anything.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- carbocation 16y agoThat's from 2006, when a similar Mohammed controversy existed.
- adelevie 16y agoThe best part of South Park exemplifying the double standard is at the end of the Cartoon Wars episodes where they show Jesus and the American flag in a pretty vulgar scene. I'm sure Comedy Central received plenty of complaints from offended Christians, yet there was no censorship.
- imp 16y agoThere were also probably no death threats.
- niekmaas 16y agoSo it seems that by making a death threat getting what you want is possible in the western world today. If you don't want SP to make fun of your religious leader? Just make a few death threats and they will censor the episode. And on top of that all other shows are afraid to touch the topic too. By what will happen is, for instance, Paris Hilton activists will start making death threats to the SP creators? Will Comedy Central start censoring all references to Paris Hilton too? Probably nothing will happen since Paris Hilton activists haven't killed anyone yet. So in fact you can conclude that terrism does work to get what you want in the world today.
- laut 16y agoIn the US, not in all of the western world. In Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Holland etc. the media printed/reprinted the cartoons. In USA, the land of the free, home of the brave, the big mainstream media seem to censor themselves because of threats of violence. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
- jaf656s 16y ago"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin The rights of media companies to print those cartoons in the US are not in question, they still have them. They CHOSE not to run the cartoons. Huge difference. EDIT: I think my point needs further clarification. It is that they did not give up liberty to gain safety. They chose not to exercise their liberty on a controversial topic. Whether personal safety from death threats was involved in the decision is irrelevant, they can still make the decision. The option to exercise a right is the important part, not the act of exercising the right itself.
- evo_9 16y agoSo what if Stone and Parker just announce to the world they are now Muslim? Wouldn't that be an easy way to solve this for them and then do whatever the hell they want? Sort of like the dentist on Seinfeld that changes religions 'just for the jokes'? In all seriousness, it worked for some Fox News reporters a few years ago who were capture by muslim extremist. That's almost a South Park ep right there it so absurd.
- anamax 16y ago> So what if Stone and Parker just announce to the world they are now Muslim? Nope. Then their "unIslamic" behavior would be apostacy and blasphemy, which are always taken more seriously when committed by "the faithful".
- evo_9 16y agoYup, for sure. I was joking hence my comment about it making a great topic for a SouthPark. I guess I'll lay my sarcasm on thicker next time, people are awfully jumpy on this topic apparently.
- ErrantX 16y agoThe reason this is always such an "outrage" when the Muslim religion is parodied is historical. The religion was founded on the idea of spreading the itself as widely as possible. Certain leaders (the founder himself even) achieved this through conquering and control. Which was fine thousands of years ago when being invaded was just part and parcel of life. :) Nowadays the original edicts don't really have any answers of what to do when you get a detractor from the religious teachings (i.e. a parody such as this). Hence extremists turn to literal interpretations and go for violence. EDIT: hmm, not that I mean to suggest Islam is a violent religion - this was meant as an explanation to the other comments that were wondering why slamming Islam elicits such a violent response from extremists compared to other religions - it is historical. (I've scrapped all the respectful nonsense - it was a quick opinion at the end of a comment relating to something different. I never intended it to be taken so seriously :))
- CWuestefeld 16y agoVoted back up out of negative territory. I strongly oppose the sentiment (I'll avoid the colloquial "violently oppose"). But it's still an important viewpoint in a discussion like this.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- jazzdev 16y ago'censoring ourselves' is not 'ignoring them'
- jerf 16y agoIf we're going to be that respectful of Islam, why are we not going to be that respectful of Christianity? Or, relevant to the current discussion, Scientology? Because they don't threaten violence anywhere near as credibly? That's a terrible, terrible incentive to set up. (But perhaps you have another answer?)
- 16y ago
- mrduncan 16y agoI haven't read it yet and don't doubt that it's a great op-ed but: Please don't do things to make titles stand out, like using uppercase or exclamation points, or adding a parenthetical remark saying how great an article is. It's implicit in submitting something that you think it's important. From: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- jrockway 16y agoPlease avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them.
- pw0ncakes 16y agoI generally agree, but I've submitted articles that I didn't like, just because I thought they were interesting starting points for discussion.
- jamesbressi 16y agoWhat really is a shame is that your comment regarding this submission--which isn't entirely on the mark--is what is at the top of the comments and taking away from the discussion which I am finding (and I'm sure others) very passionate and enlightening. Sorry, the only thing I added was "Great". The title is the original and adding NYT Op-Ed let the HN user know it was an Op-Ed. While I understand your concern and deciding to quote from the guidelines, I don't believe adding just the word "Great" was misleading or breaking the rules... And well, this may be where I get flamed, but if you want to be technical, it isn't a "parenthetical remark". Either way, point taken.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- mrduncan 16y agoWhat really is a shame is that your comment regarding this submission--which isn't entirely on the mark--is what is at the top of the comments and taking away from the discussion which I am finding (and I'm sure others) very passionate and enlightening. I completely agree. My only goal was to remind people of the guidelines and get one of the mods to tweak the title, certainly not to overshadow the conversation.
- tron_carter 16y agoXeni Jardin interviews Matt and Trey about the 200th episode and the Mohammed controversy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSVU-8X8T7U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSVU-8X8T7U
- kjhgbhnjklkjh 16y agoSimilar thing happened here with Sikhs. A young Sikh writer produced a play about child abuse in a temple (you thought catholic priests had a monopoly). The local peace loving religious leaders threatened to burn down the city run theatre. So the play was taken off. The city then went further to suggest that all future plays with Sikh characters should be approved by the religious leaders. Since no writer was going to go for that it simply removed all Sikh character from plays and to be careful from tv aswell. So the result of this censorship is going to be that the only time muslims are seen on TV it will be in news reports about terrorists. Way to go guys!
- cglee 16y agoYou didn't say where "here" was, but I'm going to assume it's somewhere where Sikhs are the minority. I think one aspect of media is that it should be called out when it misrepresents a minority who don't typically get the well rounded coverage that the majority culture gets. For example, Christianity in the US. It's "ok" to make fun of Christians because we are inundated with Christianity; the joke is obvious and there's an abundance of positive portrayals to offset the negative impact of the satire. In the case of a marginal minority, it's a lot more hurtful, and so the response is more dramatic (ie, death threats).
- savrajsingh 16y ago+1 smart comment cglee, and what I was going for too.
- kjhgbhnjklkjh 16y agoSorry here - was the UK. In an area with enough of a Sikh community to have people to protest but still a minority. Somebody said, you know you have reached equality when it's ok to portray you as the villain! Ever wondered why Brits are always cast as the bad guys in Hollywood movies. Can you imagine the press if you had a black/female/gay/disabled/minority villain.
- pbhjpbhj 16y agoIf atheists are to be believed Christians are also in the minority though, so why no protection from infantile attempts to denigrate Jesus Christ. Case in point - Behzti (sp) was cancelled the month before the BBC airing "Jerry Springer the Opera" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Springer_The_Opera http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Springer_The_Opera) which was widely criticised as being needlessly defamatory of Jesus. A few Sikhs complain and the the UK authorities react and shut down the show, thousands [of Christians] complain (the most complaints ever received by the BBC apparently) and nothing is done. The difference, well the Sikhs threatened to kill the Sikh playwright, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/dec/21/religion.arts http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/dec/21/religion.arts (add pinch of salt!), and took part in violent protests at the theatre. So violent protest is the way to win. Aside: IMO both shows should have been put on. Interestingly the Jerry Springer:The Opera show includes the use of the word "cunt" which from what I can tell is the only word the BBC won't normally allow - exceptions are made if your show is considered blasphemous, obviously.
- jsm386 16y agoFor those interested, this week's South Park: NEW YORK, April 26, 2010 - JIMMY AND TIMMY head off TO SUMMER CAMP WITH ALL THEIR HANDICAPABLE FRIENDS in an all-new episode of "South Park" titled "Crippled Summer," premiering on Wednesday, April 28 at 10:00 p.m. on COMEDY CENTRAL. Competition is the name of the game this summer. There is no time for Jimmy and his friends to slack off. They're working to be this year's champions at summer camp. Jimmy suits up and prepares to shred in the annual surfing contest. http://www.southparkstudios.com/news/3880 http://www.southparkstudios.com/news/3880 Interested to see what lines they push given recent events. They certainly have been in this territory with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cripple_Fight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cripple_Fight & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_the_Down_Steroid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_the_Down_Steroid
- cjeane 16y agoThis article fails to recognize Seaman as a member of the super best friends. Leave it to the NYT Op-Ed to get the facts wrong.
- tlack 16y agoHas anyone read an official statement from Comedy Central about this? This situation seems so counter to their reputation and public image I'm surprised they'd let it stand and not respond to all the trashing.
- aagha 16y agoI haven't taken a position on this matter yet, but is anyone (credible) looking into whether the hype around this story was generated on purpose as an attempt to smear American Muslims? See: The Radical "Muslim" Group That Threatened South Park Creators Was Founded and Run by Joseph Cohen, a Former Israeli Radical Who Used to Live in a Settlement in the West Bank http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/bvnsa/ http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/bvnsa/
- adelevie 16y agoHas anyone credible raised the question that Theo van Gogh was really murdered by someone out to make Muslims look bad?
- smallblacksun 16y agoIf by credible you mean not a raging anti-Semite, then no.
- johnyzee 16y agoUpvoted for some very good comments in that reddit thread (a lot more balanced than here, surprisingly.)
- philwelch 16y agoA conspiracy theory blaming radical Islamist violence on Jewish people? I've seen that one before.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- nekopa 16y agoThis situation really saddens. I hate the fact that people are self-censoring because of a minority of violent people. This lends them legitimacy, when they deserve none. Seeing this after reading about a girls school being poison-gassed in Afghanistan makes me say why kowtow to the violent ones? I've read the Koran and its no worse no better than the bible. My girlfriend is a Middle Eastern anthropologist who loves the culture and speaks Arabic. My research into the history of math show the ancient Arab world as a hot bed of science and literature. Yet nowadays when people think of Muslims they think of death. The high point of my last week was having one of my university students (during a class on privacy issues) say that nobody has a right to ask you what your religion is on a job application. Unless, that is, you are from somewhere in the Middle East. Then its understandable that you need to ask. WTF... But, if some Muslim feels the need to show pictures of murdered directors on then website as a prediction of what will happen to you if you make art, then it gets harder and harder to fight these prejudices. I just wish the non-violent majority of Muslims would (could?) step up to the plate and counteract the extremists.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- viggity 16y agoI'm not a very religious person, but I've done some light research and here is what I came up with as being the difference between violence in the Koran versus Bible. This an extreme paraphrasation and may be wrong, but this is how I understand it as of now: According to tradition, if the Koran/Mohammad contradicts itself, what ever happened later is to be taken as the accepted rule, however the Koran is not organized in chronological order so it can be hard to tell at first blush what is the "correct" interpretation. In the early days of Islam, when Mohammad had very few followers, it was necessary to gain more followers to espouse peace, rainbows and sunshine. As he grew more politically powerful, his rhetoric changed and "kill the infidels" was the way to go. Since it happened later chronologically this is the "official" stance of the Koran. Contrasted with the Bible wherein most of the violence is contained in the old testament. Then Jesus came along and essentially said "forget all this old stuff, I'm the new covenant, love thy neighbor, yay rainbows, sunshine and lollipops". That being said, that doesn't mean a lot of people haven't been killed in the name of Jesus, but in current times I'd guestimate 99.9999% of Christians are peace loving people who don't want violence brought upon someone because they are non-Christian. But I'd also guess that worldwide 97% of Muslims are the same way. Unfortunately the other 3% is still a large number of people who want to bomb markets, fly planes in to buildings or throw acid on girls who insist on going to school. You're absolutely right, the 97% needs to stand the hell up and drown out this nonsense.
- sabbot 16y agoStill waiting for their parody of the holocaust.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- ramoq 16y agoProbably worth while to mention that depicting Jesus in an inappropriate manner is _greatly_ disrespectful to Muslims as well. Jesus(peace be upon him) is among the most renowned Prophets of God in Islam.
- MaysonL 16y agoFor a great response, see Glenn Greenwald's takedown: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/26/douthat http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/26...
- MaysonL 16y agoI'm curious: who downvoted this without comment, and why? EDIT: removed inflammatory derogation of said downvoters.
- kloncks 16y agoAs a Muslim, myself, I don't understand the stances these fringe groups take. Ultimately, we have two issues. Portrayal of the Prophet is a big big no no in our religion, yet Freedom of Speech/Expression is a pertinent human right in most of the civilized world. Does it offend me to see any portrayals of a man we don't like to have portrayed? Yea, of course. But I'm pretty sure it offends me more to see the reactions from the people involved. If someone caricatures the prophet as a violent person, how can people [angry extremist Muslims] think that VIOLENTLY rioting and giving death threats will make the person recant that? "You think Islam's violent!? No, it isn't. And to prove that to you, I will kill you." I'm offended every time I see things like this - even if I'm a fan of South Park - but I do the sensible thing, I don't watch it. I can go more, say, write to them (sans death threats), or not buy from them anymore, etc. But this response just makes no sense at all.
- kloncks 16y agoFrom another viewpoint, it only seems to give events more exposure if you deal it with it this way. Take the Cartoons incident. It was a fairly small newspaper that wouldn't have been seen by tens of millions. In protesting over the Cartoons, the people that were against the cartoons helped show them to tens of millions of more people.
- pbhjpbhj 16y agoIt wasn't about cartoons though was it. It's a power play, can muslims begin to establish sharia law by claiming they are discriminated against - and it seems they can.
- rbanffy 16y ago> the people that were against the cartoons helped show them to tens of millions of more people. And let me tell you, it was a good thing. Many of them were very, very funny.
- tome 16y agoCould you please from your perspective explain the reason why a culture which has never historically had any rules about drawing pictures of historical characters should not continue to allow drawing pictures of historical characters? It's drawing pictures for goodness sake. Who on earth can it hurt? Drawing pictures, and indeed riduculing and condenming is something very important in a free society.
- akkartik 16y agoThe last paragraph is stirring: "if a violent fringe is capable of inspiring so much cowardice and self-censorship, it suggests that there’s enough rot in our institutions that a stronger foe might be able to bring them crashing down." But this bit a couple paragraphs up strikes me as complacent: "Happily, today’s would-be totalitarians are probably too marginal to take full advantage." A new one can and will arise. Totalitarians love a vacuum. xkcd should do a stick figure of prophet mohammed.
- evo_9 16y agoMan there are a lot of [deleted] comments on this thread. Don't do it! Seriously, the discussion is worth having - resist the urge! Otherwise downvoting becomes an effective censorship tool as well.
- jackfoxy 16y ago"...there’s enough rot in our institutions that a stronger foe might be able to bring them crashing down." This may be the white space behind the type.
- rhl 16y agoThis is actually getting really scary. A short while ago a cartoonist from Seattle suggested to make May 20 'Everyone draws Muhammad' Day worldwide. Her cartoon went viral, a Facebook page was created, the exacerbated mix of anger/resentment/stupidity in the air fueled the whole thing -- and now both her and the creator of the FB group want out: http://guyism.com/2010/04/creator-of-everybody-draw-muhammad-day-wont-draw-muhammad.html http://guyism.com/2010/04/creator-of-everybody-draw-muhammad... I can absolutely understand the heat they must be feeling -- it's especially chilling since she's clearly not famous enough to require protection, but might become just enough so that she actually pays the heavy personal toll of constant fear of reprisal. It's very sad to see this lifelike Prisoner's Dilemma happening -- we would all like to see people of goodwill the world over to show some spine and make a respectful but clear and strong resistance statement. But no one, absolutely no one can afford doing this anymore in an age of exponentials, viral growth, annihilated privacy and geocoded checkins broadcast to the world, where you can rise to (unwanted, in this case) virtual fame in a matter of hours. Anonymity is not a protection anymore. I sincerely hope that being the first globally connected generation will somehow help us avoid tearing this planet apart over religion in the next 20 years...
- tamersalama 16y agoI find the comparison between Apple's lost phone and Muhammad (PBUH) drawing interesting. While most around here are with Apple's now legal tackling and their defence of their future commodity (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1295964 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1295964), many are sceptics and sometimes hostile when some call for understanding of why they could be offended of other's 'freedom of expression'. Edit: spelling, concision.