Comedy Central censorship

[csdenmark]

Here an example of censorship from number 1 nation of the free world.

 

'South Park' aims at censors, hits Bush, Jesus

Show gets back at Comedy Central for restrictions

 

Thursday, April 13, 2006; Posted: 6:25 p.m. EDT (22:25 GMT)

 

NEW YORK (AP) -- Banned by Comedy Central from showing an image of the Islamic prophet Mohammed, the creators of "South Park" skewered their own network for hypocrisy in the cartoon's most recent episode.

 

 

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/13/southpark.muhammad.ap/story.stone.parker.jpg

Matt Stone and Trey Parker, prevented from showing Mohammed, decided to push back.

 

Here the link to the story by CNN

 

 

Summary by Jylland-Posten about the Mohammed Affair

[nickf]

Here an example of censorship from number 1 nation of the free world.

Really ? I wonder who or how they decide who's the number 1 nation of the free world ? If there was a poll to decide this, why wasnt I asked to vote ?

 

Or is it like those golf and tennis rankings that no-one really understands?

 

nickf

sydney

[asdfg2k]

Claus,

 

I generally think of censorship as something which is governmentally imposed. The fact that Comedy Central decided to preclude something from airing on their channel was a BUSINESS DECISION. That is why the the article includes the phrase: "The network's decision ....". As indicated in the article, this is not the first time that this has happened to the creators of South Park.

 

So, essentially, your example was all wet.

[luke warm]

Here an example of censorship from number 1 nation of the free world.

no it isn't

[sceptic]

actually claus, I really think you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to have a go at the yanks

[Badmonster]

I don't understand the point of csdenmark's post. It seems like there's a lot of hurt and misery in the world, which leads to violence and more hurt and misery. If someone decides that something is potentially hurtful maybe we should be glad that they decided not to publish it.

[pigpenz]

you just have to see the humor in it al ;)

[csdenmark]

actually claus, I really think you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to have a go at the yanks

Oh please - I claim nothing at all. The americans do so. I just draw your attention to some of the many and ugly ways some uses to undermine free societies.

 

Your comment may reflect the many who says freedom of speech YES but

[luke warm]

claus, what people are trying to point out to you is that whatever happened at comedy central has nothing to do with censorship by "..number 1 nation of the free world"

[Gerardo]

Your comment may reflect the many who says freedom of speech YES but

responsibility comes with it.

 

Muslims are forbidden to represent the human figure, so I think this would make (even more) muslims pissed off, because they used a figure sacred for them.

 

They did publish it without problems. They also have millions of people pissed off at them as a natural reaction, and must cope with it. And their only (apparent) reason was testing the limits. I think they crossed them.

 

Now, muslim reactions are varied, and some of them are overreactions (to my eyes, to West eyes, surely to (most?) part of the muslim world)). That doesn't make the original publication right.

 

BTW, raised Catholic here, not much into religion.

[csdenmark]

claus, what people are trying to point out to you is that whatever happened at comedy central has nothing to do with censorship by "..number 1 nation of the free world"

Roosevelt knew

Eisenhower knew

Kennedy knew

Johnson knew

Nixon knew

Reagan knew

 

the values they had to defend without shivering.

 

Those were the days when it was a bit simpler to see their values and our values. Maybe therefore they felt very strong.

 

Today the front is a bit more scattered and therefore not so clear. Lukaschenko and Mugabe are 2 names fighting our values. But they don't count so we forget our values and return to our daily agenda.

[luke warm]

i still think you're misunderstanding the criticisms... you seem to think that south park is being disallowed certain things based on official usa censorship... this is not true, the gov't had nothing to do with this, and as far as i know the gov't has taken absolutely no notice of it

 

it is a business decision only, and may or may not be "right" ... time will tell

[jdonn]

Roosevelt knew

Eisenhower knew

Kennedy knew

Johnson knew

Nixon knew

Reagan knew

 

the values they had to defend without shivering.

 

Those were the days when it was a bit simpler to see their values and our values. Maybe therefore they felt very strong.

 

Today the front is a bit more scattered and therefore not so clear. Lukaschenko and Mugabe are 2 names fighting our values. But they don't count so we forget our values and return to our daily agenda.

Dude seriously, why don't you chill a little.

 

You go from talking about a comedy!!! network to screaming presidents names in our faces? I think you have some real psychological issues about the US. This forum is for a little lighthearted chat to get our minds off bridge every now and then, not for trying to inflame everyone into joining your little personal crusade against another country.

[keylime]

The creators should be making a logo for Comedy Central:

 

"Dhimmitude Central".

 

When are we going to stand up for free speech?

[jdonn]

The creators should be making a logo for Comedy Central:

 

"Dhimmitude Central".

 

When are we going to stand up for free speech?

This isn't a case of free speech. Parker and Stone can say whatever they want, Comedy Central just won't broadcast it. The government isn't banning anyone from doing anything here.

[csdenmark]

i still think you're misunderstanding the criticisms... you seem to think that south park is being disallowed certain things based on official usa censorship... this is not true, the gov't had nothing to do with this, and as far as i know the gov't has taken absolutely no notice of it

 

it is a business decision only, and may or may not be "right" ... time will tell

No Jimmy - I am not. US Government has nothing at all to do with this case. It looks to be pure self-censorship. Same as what the american newspaper are blamed of regarding the Muhammed affair.

 

Many have chosen the same position. Editors have been fired because they stood up for freedom of expression. Egypt and France are 2 examples I remember. A norwegian editor has made a public apology to the world community of muslims because he had to come to think of their feelings might have been hurted because he fighted for freedom of expression. Now we all knows he no longer do so - he now pays tribute to ancient values.

[barmar]

I agree that this isn't a free speech issue -- it's self-censorship by the network, not forced censorship by the government. I expect this is a response to the furor that arose a couple of months ago over the comic strip that portrayed Mohammed, and I can understand their unwillingness to provoke a similar reaction.

 

The big problem with this is that religions are a frequent target of South Park's satire. So far in the past few weeks CC has prevented them from skewering Scientology (one of the most ridiculous mainstream religions around) and Islam. As a result, South Park fans are missing out on some potentially great material, unlike Parker and Stone can find another outlet.

[sceptic]

Oh please - I claim nothing at all. The americans do so. I just draw your attention to some of the many and ugly ways some uses to undermine free societies.

 

Claus when I was at school I was always teased about being fat (I still am occasionally, but I am thick skinned now)

 

kids/people are provocative by nature, and freedom of speech is such, that they have every right to tell me I am fat, in fact

"The kids do so. they just draw your attention to the fact you are fat"(hell of a quote)

 

you have every right to expect freedom of speech, but I know from experience that the more you do it the more likely you are to suffer retribution, the person dishing out the retribution is usually classified as an undesirable, rarely are the provocotors judged to be at fault almost always the retaliarors.

 

I use this as an example because of the Danish Cartoons, I lived and worked in Helsinge many many years ago, so I do have some experience of Danes and they way they are.

 

You can point things out as much as you like, you are an opinionated man (I actually find you quite amusing and think you are clever, just somewhat misguided in your out look)

 

It is a shame someone did not stop the Danes printing the cartoons, I would not call it censorship, I just think if you are going to say or do something, you should be the one that is prepared to take the consequences, not your fellow countrymen, I did not see the danes that printed the cartoon list their names and phone numbers underneath the cartoon publication. (for any possible feedback, from the people they knew they were insulting)

 

They just sat back while the consequences (and I defy anyone with a level of intellegence to realise that the extremists would not kick off about this in their country and the chances of loss of life were IMHO quite high.

 

I think that comedy central were justified in their decision, I do not think that the American Gov are as you put it guilty of this

I just draw your attention to some of the many and ugly ways some uses to undermine free societies.

which is what I believe you are trying to point out.

 

after the cartoon fiasco, I believe you should be posting on a Danish Goverment web site and pointing out their failings ( in other words Claus, get your own house in order before throwing stones in glass houses)

 

and it is this statement that I belive "Here an example of censorship from number 1 nation of the free world." that contradicts this statement "No Jimmy - I am not. US Government has nothing at all to do with this case."

[nickf]

Dude seriously, why don't you chill a little.

What he said, with bells on.

 

nick

sydney

[the saint]

South Park is p**s funny.

 

I can't wait to see the episode. I was personally hoping for some Cartman-magic on this whole issue so I will have to wait and see. Certainly, it appears they gave Scientology the same deserving treatment that Paris Hilton got!!

[helene_t]

It is a shame someone did not stop the Danes printing the cartoons, I would not call it censorship

If it's censorship or not depends who might have stopped them - the editors or some governement office. Whether it would have been right or wrong is irelevant.

 

I just think if you are going to say or do something, you should be the one that is prepared to take the consequences, not your fellow countrymen, I did not see the danes that printed the cartoon list their names and phone numbers underneath the cartoon publication.

Well, the editors' names are not secret, donno if the artists names are.

the chances of loss of life were IMHO quite high

I don't think this was predictable. The cartoons were pretty harmless. Someone needed an excuse for initiating riots. One such excuse was a foto from a French newspaper, picturing a man with a black beard dressed as a pig. It was said to be meant as a picture of Mohammed as a pig, which was nonsense. My guess is that the riots would have taken place in the absense of the cartoons as well.

[luke warm]

you have every right to expect freedom of speech, but I know from experience that the more you do it the more likely you are to suffer retribution....

wayne, i disagree with some of your thoughts here, but i think it's more a matter of environment than anything else... for example, this part (while maybe true) doesn't make the retribution right... it's a sad world when one can be physically attacked for exercising freedom of speech (and i'm not talking about children here, i'm talking about those who supposedly are more mature)

 

It is a shame someone did not stop the Danes printing the cartoons, I would not call it censorship, I just think if you are going to say or do something, you should be the one that is prepared to take the consequences, not your fellow countrymen

why should they be stopped? besides, who in their right mind would kill and loot and burn, on a nearly global scale, because of cartoons? as helene said, it would be censorship if the danish gov't did it, otherwise not (it could have been considered such, or just a business decision)

 

I did not see the danes that printed the cartoon list their names and phone numbers underneath the cartoon publication. (for any possible feedback, from the people they knew they were insulting)

it sounds as if you think it would have been *right* to physically assault the cartoonists... imo it would have been at least as criminal as what actually happened

 

They just sat back while the consequences (and I defy anyone with a level of intellegence to realise that the extremists would not kick off about this in their country and the chances of loss of life were IMHO quite high.

when violence is implemented in the way it was, it needs to be met head on with an equal or greater force, imo

[Free]

Here an example of censorship from number 1 nation of the free world.

no it isn't

Indeed, the world isn't free :P In ACBL land you can't even play most cool conventions most of the time ;)

[mr1303]

The writers of South Park insult every group without any discrimination at all. Whether or not you're white, black, red, yellow, tall, short, fat, thin, clever, stupid, rich, poor (etc etc) at some point there's been a South Park episode insulting you.

 

So why they should pull the plug just because it's Islam being insulted rather than another group?

[keylime]

As I've been saying for a long time:

 

Are we going to stand up for free speech or submit ourselves to dhimmitude?