South Park Controversy

"Who died and made you king of the zombies?"

Age 41, Male

Writer/Producer

Los Angeles CA

Joined on 3/10/08

Level:: 8
Exp Points:: 682 / 710
Exp Rank:: > 100,000
Vote Power:: 5.06 votes
Art Scouts: 1

Rank:: Town Watch
Global Rank:: 52,366
Blams:: 41
Saves:: 117
B/P Bonus:: 2%

Whistle:: Bronze

Trophies:: 12
Medals:: 478
Supporter:: 2y
Gear:: 2

South Park Controversy

Posted by sirjeffofshort - April 23rd, 2010

For those of you who haven't heard, there is a good amount of controversy over the last two episodes of South Park and their use of the prophet Muhamed as a character.

If you don't know the details i won't go into it here but HERE is a good article explaining most of what you need to know. The short version is that some extremist groups issued threats against Trey Parker & Matt Stone and Comedy Central has since been editing and censoring South Park episodes to avoid angering the groups further.

As of now neither of the last two episodes are in re-runs or even available online at southparkstudios.com and I just noticed that they had also pulled the older episode "Super Best Friends," from streaming on the site, which depicted Muhamed without being censored before the situation became taboo.

So, what do you think? Should Parker and Stone be allowed their rights to creative expression, or should they willingly censor themselves to cater to the threats of some of these groups?

*Please note any outright hate speech in response will be removed. I will accept any opinion if it is well formed and stated, but I don't want to open a forum for hate speech.*

Comments

Log in to Comment

ClockworkPixel 2010-04-23 14:21:30

it's creative i don't see whats wrong with it people portray jesus and other gods all the time showing the there not saying the prophet muhamed is wrong their just showing him. if that was jesus then every one would laugh but because it's muhamed it's wrong i don't see why people can't just have a sense of humor about their own culture and every one get along. i mean it's south part they could of made it alot worse if they wanted to.

sirjeffofshort 2010-04-23 14:21:30

I agree. My main thought is that South Park wasn't even looking to insult or harm the Islamic religion, they were looking to make a point on some groups use of violent threats to censor the rest of the world and how giving in to that will only produce more of the same.

Kinsei 2010-04-23 14:25:26

well I feel that if they want to continue uncensored, I think they should. But that would have to be there choice. If Comedy Central wanted to avoid the trouble they know that they can just refuse to air the show. So if it is a mutual agreement between The creators and Comedy Central then I'm fine with it.

On the terms of an extremest group threatening the well being of others, that I do not think is right of them to do. I'm ok with them complaining about it, but I don't feel they should threaten any one over it.

sirjeffofshort 2010-04-23 14:25:26

Right. So far as my understanding goes based on a statement Parker and Stone made, it was Comedy Central's decision to censor the show (I don't know if you saw it but boy was it censored). It's true Comedy Central could pull any episodes or even the show, but that would put them at odds (moreso than they already are) with their highest grossing show for like 14 years running.

Free speech is definitely a two way street though, and if Trey and Stone are allowed to do as they will with the show then those offended should obviously be allowed to express their concerns. I agree though that it seems silly that people can't express themselves properly and rather tend to have to resort to threats of violence.

Evil-Dog 2010-04-23 14:30:40

Worst religion ever. They're a bunch of babies ready to die for fairy tales. It's quite sad

sirjeffofshort 2010-04-23 14:30:40

I know this borders on the type of thing I said I was going to take down, but rather I just want to state for the record that it is only EXTREME groups issuing threats.

Statements from other islamic and muslim groups have actually said that they respect that the "South Park" struggle stems from a need for creative expression and not from a want to harm or insult their faith.

dudeofdudeland 2010-04-23 14:58:18

Okay, so people thinks Muhammed is so religious so he can't be shown ANYWHERE, if you ask me, I think it's a little stupid. Even though they don't show him they get threattoned to death.
I'm on Tray Parkers and Matt Stones side!

sirjeffofshort 2010-04-23 14:58:18

I think a lot of people over here (in america) would think the same, but there is another side to the story. I do agree though that if it is okay to show or make fun of any religious figure it should be okay to touch upon any. I also think that in this day and age we should be beyond using violence to attempt to get someone to conform to the rules of your religion.

GreyGreySilver 2010-04-23 15:17:32

Wow, this is tough to say. Even though America has a freedom of speech, but the muslim countries do not. So, because they do not mock of say anything bad about Muhamed since it is a sin to say anything bad about Muhamed, they are being very sensitive about their idol. Its just like teasing a kid at school, then the kid goes to school with a gun to threaten everyone.

But on the Muslim's side, Parker and Stone do go to far sometimes, and they have also been warned before.

Its hard to say why they awre doing it too! I mean, South Park didnt do anything really to make fun of the god anyways. They said he had a lot of power, and thats it.

sirjeffofshort 2010-04-23 15:17:32

Really well put, and I was hoping someone would at least point out the argument from the non south park side of the table.

skarai 2010-04-23 15:21:48

Show sucks anyway

sirjeffofshort 2010-04-23 15:21:48

It's still a subject that can potentially affect all media, and therefore one appropriate for discussion.

darklight500 2010-04-23 15:33:01

This is in fact quite a touchy subject. Not only because of Muhamed and the extremists, but their ABILITY to actually carry out these threats with action. This story has 2 sides in my opinion. The larger most obvious one is free speech and the extremists, but the smaller but even important thing is the debate of Freedom VS Safety.

Anyone who wants and knows how to make a bomb can make them with the most basic tools available. Society counts on part law enforcements, part social cohesion and part morality to inhibit such actions. But obviously, extremists don't take part in these three areas as we experience as normal, rather they follow their own set of rules and behaviour that makes actions such as these and their consequences more common practice.

Society as we know it isn't equipped for this kind of behaviour. Not until every corner is monitored, every purchase tracked, every person brainwashed and thought police invented will it be possible to 100% prevent this.

But are we even humans at that stage? Won't safety in such measures mean the end of humanity and all its freedoms we have come to enjoy? When is there enough safety to be safe from these threats that we can live in peace? Can we actually live in peace when our every action would be monitored?

Freedom and safety are two very peculiar things. There's 2 ways you can see it; They can go hand in hand or, they can't be seen together at all. Both have the need for sacrifices to be made and there's no "Best of both worlds" scenario. Not in a way I can see it happening in the traditional sense.

sirjeffofshort 2010-04-23 15:33:01

So many questions with no easy answers. Really well stated comment. I do think the first step to finding that "best of both worlds" scenario (if it is at all attainable) is to open a dialogue between people who are willing to see the standpoint of both sides and respect the ideals and feelings of all parties involved, and to educate the people who may be less open minded so they may see that each issue has two sides and each may be equally valid.

Cascadia 2010-04-23 15:44:13

I saw those episodes. Never really liked the show, but I support free speech in that they should be able to reference Muhammed without being controversial. The religion is just terrible because they pick up on small insignificant things like this and take offence to it.

sirjeffofshort 2010-04-23 15:44:13

Right. I wouldn't say it's the religions fault so much as a number of people who remain so touchy about their beliefs that they have a knee jerk reaction whenever the subject is brought up rather than taking the time to educate themselves and research what is happening on the other side of the story.

It is very likely that the people issuing the threats never even saw the episode of South Park and simply jumped to the conclusion that their faith was being mocked, which as far as I know was not the ultimate intent of the show.

Pengus 2010-04-23 16:08:11

Wow this is great. The whole point of Muhammad in those episodes was to make fun of all the people that get all upset when they show him, which is exactly whats happening now! In the episode they had the towns people being afraid about having him shown. This is too funny to be true. I think people are way to stupid. Its not the real Muhammad they put in a bear suit!

sirjeffofshort 2010-04-23 16:08:11

Yeah, I did think that was a very clever reveal (that it wasn't even Muhammad in the bear suit) accompanied by the quote "If we were trying not to show the prophet Muhammad why the F would we put him in a bear suit?".

It's also good to point out (as you did) that they aren't making fun of Muhammad and in fact when they were allowed to depict him they depicted him as a super hero with the power of flame and the ultimate goal of uniting people of all religions and creeds. Something to think about indeed.

blackbass 2010-04-23 16:10:20

i saw it some times ago and it's true that there a lot of people who can't see caricaatures with an open mind and i think that they delete it to avoidd contreversy...
after all if you saw and i think you did what they do in danmark just for 1 of them u can't know what they next move will be so i think they did it that way to avoid being targeted
(hope u'll anderstand what i'm saying)

sirjeffofshort 2010-04-23 16:10:20

Right, but it is also important to understand how hurtful certain caricatures can be when intended, which the Dutch cartoons were clearly meant to be.

The South Park cartoons weren't meant to be harmfull as the Dutch cartoons were, so it's a really good point to make that it can be dangerous to lump the idea of all caricatures together. Some are meant to he hateful and harmful, while others are merely artistic expression.

Desknight 2010-04-23 16:30:53

Extremist groups just feel happy that they're a part of some bigger than life thing and dont want anyone to give them crap about it. Actually I think I just found a loophole in from the point of view of the extremeists. Mohammed is just a prophet not god, and if South Park made fun of Alla then they probably wont do crap about it, thats contrary to their own religion as they would be worshipping a man over god.
Finally all I have to say is that its an AMERICAN Tv show, maybe Comedy Central should just not show South Park in those countries or if the extreme group is in America then for them to leave to said country because they cant really do anything lawful at that point. Its sorta like the situation where Resident Evil 5 was getting crap from black people when the game had you shoot every race before 5.

sirjeffofshort 2010-04-23 16:30:53

Interesting loophole idea. Not sure how well it would go over with them, but interesting none the less haha.

The group issuing the threats was based out of New York, so keeping the show out of certain countries may help the situation but not eliminate it all together.

LIke with the resident evil 5 controversy, the issue of creative expression versus racial sensitivity does seem to be a hot topic with no easy answers.

JonBro 2010-04-23 16:44:28

Seriously? This actually happened?

This exact predicament was issued about Family Guy FIVE YEARS AGO in the two-part South Park episode "Cartoon Wars."

They shouldn't have to censor anything, unless they're straight-up threatening followers of an entire religion. If anyone doesn't like or is offended by the show, they don't have to watch it. It's just another form of expression.

sirjeffofshort 2010-04-23 16:44:28

Yeah, it really seems to be the one thing they just might be over their heads on.

I do think the "if you don't like it don't watch it" argument is somewhat founded, although I think with these groups its less about being offended themselves and more about not wanting the imagery out there for anyone to see, which anyone who has released anything on the internet knows you just can't police the world from saying bad things about anything.

FullMetal918 2010-04-23 16:45:15

What pisses me off the most is that the westboro church can go to soldiers funerals and call them fags and laugh and cheer,,and if thats the 2nd amendment and they can get away with it then why cant we make a parody cartoon??America was founded on the beliefsof justice,freedom and the hey its cool attitude.no laws were broken,just some mad little newfags because they think they are above the law....anyways I think its a load,no hate on the westboro or anything just using it as a point

sirjeffofshort 2010-04-23 16:45:15

Yeah, it's really hard to define what constitutes free speech here.

The big difference though is that it's not the government stepping in and saying they (Parker and Stone) can't say these things, it's the network that airs the show censoring itself to avoid violent retaliation. There are those (including Parker and Stone from what I have heard) that believe the network should have the guts to stand firm in the face of the threats otherwise it just sends the message that violence is the way to get what you want.

That of course is something to be worked out between South Park Studios and Comedy Central, however the real question to ask yourself is that if someone was threatening you with murder and had the means to do it, would you willingly censor yourself to cater to their demands? It's a tough call any way you slice it.

othersideoftheportal 2010-04-23 17:16:45

This whole controversy is stupid. They have freedom of speech they should be alowed to express themselves.They make fun of every religoun and alot more subjects and they should be alowed to if they want to, Im christian and I find it personally fine of South park. The whole message of the show can aplly to this! Of course even the speech in the show was bleeped out. Its not even as if they really made fun of him. They even had jesus looking at porn and Buddah snorting cocaine but its all funny!if they just dont think its fine that they only get upset about there own religoun and also i dont think putting a dead pic of Van Ghogh is just a warning. Its wrong of those muslims in my opinion.(The website) And at the mist of all this it ruined 3 good south park episodes >.>

sirjeffofshort 2010-04-23 17:16:45

I agree that they should be allowed to say what they want, and the only thing standing between them and their free expression is their contractual obligations to comedy central.

To me there is little leeway in their saying the posting was not a threat. If not a direct threat is was certainly threatening in nature.

They do certainly lampoon everyone equally so I don't think it is arguable that South Park in general is being hateful or trying to harm any one particular group, but as stated above the real question is about self censorship in the face of violent threats.

I honestly can't say for certain that I would be able to stand strong in the face of such threats.

darklight500 2010-04-23 17:23:57

As I see it, the problem is not with the common extremist people but with their leader(s). They're the fear mongering, powerful and charasmatic people that hold those groups together and brainwash their followers with continuous propaganda from very young ages. Deal with it from the root, and the group will crumble significantly.

Look at it this way: Trying to negotiate with them is like breaking an egg by putting pressure around it with your hand; it will take a lot of effort to make an impression. Targeting the leaders and you're using a knife to deal a hard blow and crack the egg.

sirjeffofshort 2010-04-23 17:23:57

An astute observation as to the structuring of militant and extremist groups. I don't think it would be right (and I'm not sure you were suggesting it or not) to meet the leaders of such groups with violence as, although the tactic may work it only serves to create more anger and hatred in its place, however I do agree that the structuring of those groups is such that the leaders are where the problem lies, and that simply arguing or discussing with its followers is as useful as arguing the issue with a wall.

speeddemon212 2010-04-23 17:44:37

You know what is ironic about this controversy is that they did an episode on this exact topic already. Im surprised that they haven't learned from it already. I think that comedy central should of left it alone because of the first amendment we have the right to say whatever we want and do what ever we want!

sirjeffofshort 2010-04-23 17:44:37

I totally agree and those were definitely more along the lines of my initial thoughts, but when I thought about it further I realized that it would really be a tough decision to make when you're responsible for the well being of so many employees.

BioTank 2010-04-23 17:45:24

I think revolutionmuslim is being childish about this. Super best friends was released a long time ago, the only thing south park might have actually made fun of Muhamed in the last episodes was that they couldn't show him, and I support free speech, in all its forms, I just rely on the golden rule, if you dont want to see it, dont watch it, thier are other channels...

sirjeffofshort 2010-04-23 17:45:24

I agree, the whole thing does hinge on the fact that these extremists are being very irrational and jumping to conclusions without all of the facts, but I guess you can't expect the whole world to act with level headed maturity.

FrozenFire 2010-04-23 17:56:09

Any person who gets butthurt enough over entertainment which mocks them or someone they care about to actually kill because of it is just giving more reason to mock their idol. I mean really, if the writers of South Park were killed.. A LOT of fucking people will pretty much despise the Muhammad following for NOT being able to take a joke. It's not that hard, close your eyes and ears.. let it go.

sirjeffofshort 2010-04-23 17:56:09

There are actually even some people out there who think the "revolution muslim" group was made to actually make their faith look bad by perpetuating harmful stereotypes and hate speech. An interesting thought.

It's totally true though that when you act with such hate you often do more harm for your cause than good.

sirjeffofshort 2010-04-23 18:25:07

a good video if anyone wants the Daily Show take on the situation...

<a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-22-2010/south-park-death-threats">http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu -april-22-2010/south-park-death-threa ts</a>

NickabockaglorySpoon 2010-04-23 18:55:35

I'm very passionate about this and it really annoys me. It's almost like people are going out of their way to be offended. Just don't watch it, easy as that. There is nothing in the world including a personal attack that would "offend" me enough to get seriously angry. If anything good comes out of this it will be that people will stand up to this crap.

sirjeffofshort 2010-04-23 18:55:35

It really would take everyone standing together to end such a thing, and then there is no guarantee that it would end peacefully and I think that is what scares most people, being one of the sacrifices made to end such a struggle.

More Results

South Park Controversy

Comments

Log in to Comment

Main Sections

Extra, Extra!

Community

NG Related