5 ms·

There were also probably no death threats.

by imp 16y ago

niekmaas 16y ago
So 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 ago
  In 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.
    - borism 16y ago
      huge difference from companies' and journalists' point of view - maybe. no difference whatsoever from consumer point of view.
    - netcan 16y ago
      Can I suggest you reread your statement and think about it again? Liberty is not only possible to infringe on via government involvement. If someone made a decision to avoid violence against him/her, that is not a free choice. What difference does it make if they are avoiding imprisonment by a state or private violence?
      - jaf656s 16y ago
        I still stand by my statement, or at least the intent of my statement. To say that someone who chooses not to exercise a right, for any reason, doesn't deserve liberty is wrong. They are not giving up the ability to exercise that right for safety, they are choosing not to exercise it for safety. This is the distinction I wanted to make. Whether personal safety is involved is irrelevant to whether they deserve liberty for choosing not to exercise a right. Is this more clear?
        pbhjpbhj 16y ago
        >They are not giving up the ability to exercise that right for safety, they are choosing not to exercise it for safety. To make a hypothetical analogue: You're saying that if I threaten you with death if you leave your house then if you choose not to leave the house so as to live you aren't giving up your right to leave the house only choosing not to exercise that right. In other words you're saying threatening to kill someone doesn't restrict their rights it just means that if they want to exercise them they'll die. You then appear to be using that as a basis for saying that it's OK to threaten death to someone? I think you misunderstand the notion of restricting someone rights.
        jaf656s 16y ago
        No. I was saying that if you threaten me with death if I leave my house, and I choose to stay in my house for personal safety, that this act doesn't undermine the fact that I DESERVE liberty. I think restricting others rights by any means (violent or not) is very, very wrong.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    Oh, please. The set of western countries which are not-(Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, unnamed etc.) is not simply (USA).
- chaosmachine 16y ago
  Death threats aren't enough. You need death threats plus a history of fanatics willing to back them up.
- jrockway 16y ago
  So in fact you can conclude that terrorism does work to get what you want in the world today. It doesn't work for white people though -- that guy who flew his plane into the IRS building didn't get what he wanted, and neither did the Unabomber or Timothy McVeigh. It seems that we are more afraid of different-looking people than we are of being blown up.
  - kilowatt 16y ago
    That's a poor comparison. Presumably a small army of white guys pissed off enough by taxation to kamikaze themselves into public buildings does not exist. (Although, see the insurgence of the militia movement, and Palin's "don't retreat, just reload!" rhetoric...)
  - philwelch 16y ago
    The Unabomber got his essay published. I think he's willing to take that as a win.
  - astine 16y ago
    I dunno, back when the Klan was in force, people were pretty scared of it. McVeigh and Kaczynski were one-off wackos, neither of whom managed to make any demands before being caught.
mcantelon 16y ago
Hard to say. Christian extremists are quite willing to issue death threats against abortion practitioners and such.
- anamax 16y ago
  > Christian extremists are quite willing to issue death threats against abortion practitioners and such. Some Christian extremists are willing to issue such threats, and pretty much all Christians are criticized as a result. (See the above for an example.) Moreover, many Christians do condemn such threats. (That doesn't fit the narrative, so it doesn't get much play and they don't get any credit, but they still keep doing it.) With Islam, not so much. (The closest we get is that the most heinous acts by folks who just happen to be named Mohammed are excused by their co-religionists with "they were provoked".) Is the difference because Christians haven't killed enough people yet? Or is it that Islam is "the other"? Or what?
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Huh-wha? I mean I'm with you and everyone here as far as the censorship.. But in the United States that I'm living in, saying anything bad about "all Christians" is a consistent political death sentence. And in the United States that I lived in from 2001 to 2006 or so when people cooled off, ripping on "all arabs" or "all muslims" was practically de rigeur. EDIT: I mean, maybe if you were hanging in the most liberal of circles then the way you put it would be the case -- but definitely not in most circles in America.
    - anamax 16y ago
      > But in the United States that I'm living in, saying anything bad about "all Christians" is a consistent political death sentence. It is in some places but not others. And, the last I looked, not being electable isn't a huge burden. There are lots of things that make one unelectable in one jurisdiction or another. Do you really think that that's comparable?
  - asdflkj 16y ago
easp 16y ago
Given the extreme rhetoric I've seen voiced by various "Christian" groups and individuals in the US over the past few decades, I'd be surprised if there haven't been death threats against Parker and Stone. That we haven't heard as much about them doesn't surprise me either. Right-wing domestic terrorism gets some coverage, but is typically downplayed.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  I was waiting for this. "Islamic terrorism is nothing compared to Christian terrorism". Sigh. If you believe it then here's an experiment for you. Go to Vatican City and stand in St Peters square and shout obscene things about Jesus. If you think Catholics are too tame then choose somewhere like Canterbury Cathedral (the seat of the Primate of the Anglican Communion). Now, assuming you survive(!) go to the Al Haram mosque and repeat the experiment shouting obscene things about Mohammed. If you prefer then I'd accept you doing the same in any major mosque. I await the side column reports of your death "from trampling" at the Kaaba.

There were also probably no death threats.

by imp 16y ago

There were also probably no death threats.

So 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 ago
In 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.
  - borism 16y ago
    huge difference from companies' and journalists' point of view - maybe. no difference whatsoever from consumer point of view.
  - netcan 16y ago
    Can I suggest you reread your statement and think about it again? Liberty is not only possible to infringe on via government involvement. If someone made a decision to avoid violence against him/her, that is not a free choice. What difference does it make if they are avoiding imprisonment by a state or private violence?
    - jaf656s 16y ago
      I still stand by my statement, or at least the intent of my statement. To say that someone who chooses not to exercise a right, for any reason, doesn't deserve liberty is wrong. They are not giving up the ability to exercise that right for safety, they are choosing not to exercise it for safety. This is the distinction I wanted to make. Whether personal safety is involved is irrelevant to whether they deserve liberty for choosing not to exercise a right. Is this more clear?
      - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
        >They are not giving up the ability to exercise that right for safety, they are choosing not to exercise it for safety. To make a hypothetical analogue: You're saying that if I threaten you with death if you leave your house then if you choose not to leave the house so as to live you aren't giving up your right to leave the house only choosing not to exercise that right. In other words you're saying threatening to kill someone doesn't restrict their rights it just means that if they want to exercise them they'll die. You then appear to be using that as a basis for saying that it's OK to threaten death to someone? I think you misunderstand the notion of restricting someone rights.
        jaf656s 16y ago
        No. I was saying that if you threaten me with death if I leave my house, and I choose to stay in my house for personal safety, that this act doesn't undermine the fact that I DESERVE liberty. I think restricting others rights by any means (violent or not) is very, very wrong.
- philwelch 16y ago
  Oh, please. The set of western countries which are not-(Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, unnamed etc.) is not simply (USA).
chaosmachine 16y ago
Death threats aren't enough. You need death threats plus a history of fanatics willing to back them up.
jrockway 16y ago
So in fact you can conclude that terrorism does work to get what you want in the world today. It doesn't work for white people though -- that guy who flew his plane into the IRS building didn't get what he wanted, and neither did the Unabomber or Timothy McVeigh. It seems that we are more afraid of different-looking people than we are of being blown up.
- kilowatt 16y ago
  That's a poor comparison. Presumably a small army of white guys pissed off enough by taxation to kamikaze themselves into public buildings does not exist. (Although, see the insurgence of the militia movement, and Palin's "don't retreat, just reload!" rhetoric...)
- philwelch 16y ago
  The Unabomber got his essay published. I think he's willing to take that as a win.
- astine 16y ago
  I dunno, back when the Klan was in force, people were pretty scared of it. McVeigh and Kaczynski were one-off wackos, neither of whom managed to make any demands before being caught.

mcantelon 16y ago

Hard to say. Christian extremists are quite willing to issue death threats against abortion practitioners and such.

anamax 16y ago
> Christian extremists are quite willing to issue death threats against abortion practitioners and such. Some Christian extremists are willing to issue such threats, and pretty much all Christians are criticized as a result. (See the above for an example.) Moreover, many Christians do condemn such threats. (That doesn't fit the narrative, so it doesn't get much play and they don't get any credit, but they still keep doing it.) With Islam, not so much. (The closest we get is that the most heinous acts by folks who just happen to be named Mohammed are excused by their co-religionists with "they were provoked".) Is the difference because Christians haven't killed enough people yet? Or is it that Islam is "the other"? Or what?
- jbooth 16y ago
  Huh-wha? I mean I'm with you and everyone here as far as the censorship.. But in the United States that I'm living in, saying anything bad about "all Christians" is a consistent political death sentence. And in the United States that I lived in from 2001 to 2006 or so when people cooled off, ripping on "all arabs" or "all muslims" was practically de rigeur. EDIT: I mean, maybe if you were hanging in the most liberal of circles then the way you put it would be the case -- but definitely not in most circles in America.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > But in the United States that I'm living in, saying anything bad about "all Christians" is a consistent political death sentence. It is in some places but not others. And, the last I looked, not being electable isn't a huge burden. There are lots of things that make one unelectable in one jurisdiction or another. Do you really think that that's comparable?
- asdflkj 16y ago

easp 16y ago

Given the extreme rhetoric I've seen voiced by various "Christian" groups and individuals in the US over the past few decades, I'd be surprised if there haven't been death threats against Parker and Stone. That we haven't heard as much about them doesn't surprise me either. Right-wing domestic terrorism gets some coverage, but is typically downplayed.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago
I was waiting for this. "Islamic terrorism is nothing compared to Christian terrorism". Sigh. If you believe it then here's an experiment for you. Go to Vatican City and stand in St Peters square and shout obscene things about Jesus. If you think Catholics are too tame then choose somewhere like Canterbury Cathedral (the seat of the Primate of the Anglican Communion). Now, assuming you survive(!) go to the Al Haram mosque and repeat the experiment shouting obscene things about Mohammed. If you prefer then I'd accept you doing the same in any major mosque. I await the side column reports of your death "from trampling" at the Kaaba.