*1004: Cartoon Wars Part II*

Discuss new episodes without ruining them for people in other time zones.

Moderator: Big-Will

mewster
Posts: 1879
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 4:49 am

Postby mewster » Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:23 pm

My electricity went out @ 10pm and I went to bed before it came back on. I didn't see it until now.

Waddling Buttslop didn't get his way for once. That satisfies me.

As for this censorship "controversey," Muhammad was shown in "Super Best Friends", so, in light of recent events, I'm certain M&T never intended to show Muhammad in the first place.
I'm now known as Cartman's Top Enemy. Please make a note of it.
Ponderevo
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:36 pm

Postby Ponderevo » Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:04 pm

I think that Comedy Central was right for censoring the Muhammad scene.

This is NOT about free speech. We all KNOW that there is free speech in the US, in Denmark and in most western countries.

This is about knowing the consequences of what happens when you use your free speech in a certain way. Free speech allows you to go up to, say, Mike Tyson, and call him an a**hole into his face. Yet, you know exactly what is going to happen afterwards. So you DON'T say that to him, even if you theoretically could.

Similarly, we all have learnt that using free speech in order to provoke Muslims leeds to rioting in the Middle East, and also to a number of deaths. (Yes, actually people have died in those riots).

The difference between "Super Best Friends" and "Cartoon Wars" is that in "Super Best Friends", Muhammad was part of the story, while showing Muhammad in "Cartoon Wars" was purely done for provocative reasons, in a way to prove a point and to show "Yes, we CAN do it, now what you are going to do about it?"

This is the same thing that the Danish newspaper "Jyllandsposten" did. The problem was not so much the fact that they printed cartoons with Muhammad (this had been done before and went unnoticed, some of the cartoons actually were reprints), but the fact that they had ANNOUNCED it, that the newspaper itself had made a whole big publicity affair out of it. It was MEANT as a provocation.

And this is something which, according to my opinion, is just kind of childish. As someone has asked on this board, what IF they had shown muhammmad in "Cartoon Wars"? What would that prove? What would be the difference? So that we all know that there is free speech? We do already know that, thank you. It is not necessary to risk peoples lives to shove that point home, even if it is "only" the lives of some fanatic muslim protesters who get shot by security for trying to burn an embassy.
McMalakai
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:02 am

Postby McMalakai » Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:24 pm

mewster wrote:My electricity went out @ 10pm and I went to bed before it came back on. I didn't see it until now.

Waddling Buttslop didn't get his way for once. That satisfies me.

As for this censorship "controversey," Muhammad was shown in "Super Best Friends", so, in light of recent events, I'm certain M&T never intended to show Muhammad in the first place.


We've been through that logic on this and other threads. Super Best Friends was made before 9/11, and hasn't aired since the 'Cartoon Jihad' caused by the Danish Immans.

Comedy Central wouldn't air Super Best Friends at this time for all the oil in the Kingdom of Saud.

Comedy Central have admitted to prohibiting Matt and Trey from showing the image of Mohammad on their network. It wasn't a stunt, it was a corporate entity censoring a contractor.

It will be interesting to see if an uncensored version was made for networks in other countries that are willing to show it. Also, what will go on the Season DVD? Can't wait for the commentary track.
triplemultiplex
Posts: 6098
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:24 am

Postby triplemultiplex » Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:28 pm

Ponderevo wrote:...what IF they had shown muhammmad in "Cartoon Wars"? What would that prove? What would be the difference? So that we all know that there is free speech? We do already know that, thank you. It is not necessary to risk peoples lives to shove that point home, even if it is "only" the lives of some fanatic muslim protesters who get shot by security for trying to burn an embassy.


That doesn't sound like free speech to me. That sounds like, "Yeah, we have freedom of speech so long as you don't say..."

Make no mistake, no lives were saved this week. The type of people who like to trump up this kind of thing to enrage others so they join their side have plenty of other things to rally around.

This incident by itself is bad enough, but add the Bloody Mary and scientology controversies to that and it seems that special interest groups are successfully attempting to make religious satire off limits. If saying something is not allowed, then that's a blow to free speech and I do NOT like that.
__________________________________________________

You read it! You can't unread it!
Big-Will
Board Moderator
Posts: 18768
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 8:57 am

Postby Big-Will » Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:34 pm

Yup!

Well, looks like religion has caught up to South Park and squelched it. Last fall Matt and Trey went after Scientology in "Trapped In The Closet" after which Tom Cruise threatened to sue Comedy Central if it aired the episode again (it was scheduled to air again the week before "The Return of Chef!" but was switched out in favor of two Chef-centric eps), and then after excess reverence in "Bloody Mary" after which The Catholic League got a faithful Catholic Viacom executive to stop Comedy Central from airing it again (despite Comedy Central's protestations that it will air it again and that the Catholic League can't stop them, "Bloody Mary" has NOT aired again since its initial run last December.). A few weeks ago, Comedy Central told Matt and Trey that they couldn't show Muhammad again in light of radical Muslim riots aruond the world over the Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad, and correspondent Rob Corddry said as much on the Daily Show segment "This Week In God: Blasphemy!" (see that here), so it seems Comedy Central made this a general ban. But if you make depictions of Muhammad and a bleeding Mary statue forbidden, then other images will fall under the ban as well, like Jesus (well, Matt and Trey have Jesus participating in a poopfest at the end of Wednesday's ep, but...), and religion will become taboo. Matt and Trey can eventually no longer go after any religion, and that chips away at freedom of expression.
The South Park Scriptorium
The South Park Scriptorium on Facebook

Favorite Character: Butters
Need to look for something on the board? Use the search links below: US version
nojo
Posts: 600
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:51 am

Postby nojo » Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:38 pm

aeb1barfo wrote:I'll cover your Smothers Brothers and raise you a "Laugh In".

Of course! Butters is the bastard lovechild of Judy Carne and Arte Johnson!

Except I don't recall Laugh-In facing any censorship issues. Or was there something about "You bet your sweet bippy" that my impressionable young mind missed?
Ponderevo
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:36 pm

Postby Ponderevo » Fri Apr 14, 2006 6:30 pm

triplemultiplex wrote: That doesn't sound like free speech to me. That sounds like, "Yeah, we have freedom of speech so long as you don't say..."


Free speech does only guarantee you the right that the government won't prosecute you for what you say or think. It does not ensure that you can say whatever you like and not bear the consequences. Comedy Central are the employers of Matt and Trey, and they DO have the right to decide what is shown on their network and what not. There are thousands of examples of employers who prohibit their employees to say certain things, and nobody brings up free speech in those affairs.

I understand that Matt and Trey are probably now a bit sensitized about that whole religion and censorship thing, what with Scientology and the Catholics (it IS strange how catholics reacted so strongly to "Bloody Mary", but not to "Red Hot Catholic Love", which I personally woul deem much more offensive if I were a catholic). But they could have found another way to deal with that. I was quite pleased with their reaction to Scientology, but now? They wasted two entire episodes in which they basically only talked about themselves. I really wonder how much people out there who are NOT diehard SP fans even got those references.

Make no mistake, no lives were saved this week. The type of people who like to trump up this kind of thing to enrage others so they join their side have plenty of other things to rally around.


You're right there, of course. I believe that if anybody would want to use that two episodes in order to provoke muslim rage, they'd probably do it anyway, no matter if Muhammad was actually shown or not. They already twisted the facts in the Danish cartoon affair, they could just as easily twist facts here. Think about it, it's easy: Claim that there is an American cartoon which repeatedly makes fun of Muhammad. Claim that even in the opening credits, Satan is shown standing directly behind Muhammad. Claim that Muhammad was shown to make love to a camel (and use images of Bin Laden in "OBL has farty pants" in order to prove the fact, if at all necessary.)

AFAIK, all 12 cartoonist whou did the original danish cartoons are now under constant police protection. I really wonder how much Matt and Reay would like THAT?
handlyhamster
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 12:49 am

Postby handlyhamster » Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:17 pm

Coen wrote:Awww... I'm sorry. Is the liberal hippie all butt-hurt? Call the WHAAAmbulance.


You may have a Masters in English Lit. but you didn't do so well in debate, huh?
mediaaddict
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:12 pm

Postby mediaaddict » Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:18 pm

You know with all the goings on with Matt and Trey you wonder if they're preparing for somthing big, perhaps another movie.
"And the Meek Shall Inherit The Earth"
JimG
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 6:55 pm

Free Speech vs Terrorist Threats

Postby JimG » Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:19 pm

These comments are directed at Bill
Donohue of the Catholic League, who made some intemperate accusations yesterday. Consider mine a slightly different POV, not exactly a South Park groupie, but a fan, and a defender of Parker and Stone's creative freedom:

Bill, I'm sorry, I've been an ardent supporter of the League for many years, and usually you pick your causes and make your case with a strong sense of justice and moral concern. You've done much to protect the Church against infringement
of its civil rights. But, really, your comments on the latest South Park brouhaha are too much, you go too far. Whores? Think what you like about Parker and Stone and their brand of satire -- and, yes, I agree that sometimes it can be awfully gross and offensive beyond words, they often cross the line of decency -- but Bill, it's their right. And the Islam episode made a strong
point about intolerance in the Islamic world and our fear of speaking out against it. Free speech does indeed extend to ALL of us. And I, for one, thought that the South Park creators were right on target. Oddly enough, as in their show on Scientology, they were dead right. And we should be grateful for that. You need to remember that the grossly offensive "defecation" scene involving Jesus and George Bush and others was not an expression of their personal disdain for these people: it was the Islamic "response" to the US for its temerity in allowing the Family Guy episode to be aired. The craziness they satirized was all on the other side. That these guys have ripped and ridiculed the Catholic Church in the past (although they are usually pretty easy on Jesus and God and are definitely anti-abortion) is nothing to be proud of, and you should lambast
them for their lapses. That's our right and responsibility. And, ultimately, members of the Catholic Church should simply turn off their sets (but not bury their heads in the ground!), protest, and pray. In the Public Square, it's an open debate, and we need to be engaged in that debate. But, we have no right to
shut it down for these guys just because they are profane in their satire and skewer everyone in sight. At least they are consistent. The irony is that their own network, Comedy Central, which is far and away the most offensive and crassest broadcasting outlet on TV, is ten times, a whole order of magnitude, worse than the foul-mouthed kids of South Park (who often, remember, have good messages to convey, they aren't just destructive nihilists)...the folks at Comedy Central
decided to make the call because of what they called concerns for public safety. Nonsense. And Parker and Stone are right -- and justified -- to use their public platform to lampoon the hypocrisy in their own back yard. You don't cut and run: you
attack the hypocritical beast who feeds you, applauds you when South Park is offensive about the Church, but balks when you turn your criticism on Islamic rage. Bill, I think you've got it wrong. The League should go on blasting the show when
the criticism is warranted, but don't demand censorship when, to do so, clearly contravenes Constitutional protections. These guys aren't always right -- but they're not always wrong. Leave them alone. They have a right to free speech as much as we do. Blasphemy is nothing new. Protest is good. But don't call
them whores: that's senseless criticism and you completely miss the point. What scares me is that Islam wields more power over American TV, because of fear and terrorism, than anybody on the so called Christian Right. Try reading the book "South Park Conservatives" sometime: it's an alternative view of the program, and not necessarily anti-religious. For what it's worth, I'm an ardent Kenny supporter!
handlyhamster
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 12:49 am

Postby handlyhamster » Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:21 pm

JDG128 wrote:"Simpsons" season premiere involved manatees.

Furthermore, the only point to it being manatees is to say that a dumb-looking aquatic animal could write Family Guy.


Yes, and not to mention Kenny enjoys eating Manatee spleens.
stevesut1
Posts: 417
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 6:30 pm

Postby stevesut1 » Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:24 pm

It wasn't bad. It had a few good parts, but nothing to write home about.
bulrog2004
Posts: 411
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 4:06 am

Postby bulrog2004 » Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:31 pm

handlyhamster wrote:
JDG128 wrote:"Simpsons" season premiere involved manatees.

Furthermore, the only point to it being manatees is to say that a dumb-looking aquatic animal could write Family Guy.


Yes, and not to mention Kenny enjoys eating Manatee spleens.


and that peter and meg were called "manatee" in 2 FG episodes.
Levani
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:53 pm

Postby Levani » Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:42 pm

i dont understand whats the big deal is.they already showed the picture of mohammed.whats wrong with showing it again now?
Big-Will
Board Moderator
Posts: 18768
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 8:57 am

Postby Big-Will » Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:46 pm

Ponderevo wrote:(it IS strange how catholics reacted so strongly to "Bloody Mary", but not to "Red Hot Catholic Love", which I personally woul deem much more offensive if I were a catholic).

First, Catholics in general didn't mind either episode.

Second, this is the Catholic League you're thinking of, not Catholics in general.

Third, the Catholic League has protested EVERY EPISODE THAT HAS ANY CATHOLIC REFERENCE, including "Red Hot Catholic Love," ever since "Damien" aired back in 1998. The difference this time is that the Catholic League acted more aggresively than it has before, and now that images of Muhammad has been banned, the League has more leverage - if images of Muhammad are banned, then so should images of Jesus be banned.

Levani wrote:i dont understand whats the big deal is.they already showed the picture of mohammed.whats wrong with showing it again now?

You haven't been keeping up with the news, have you? Danish cartoon riots and all...
The South Park Scriptorium
The South Park Scriptorium on Facebook

Favorite Character: Butters
Need to look for something on the board? Use the search links below: US version

Return to “Spoilers/New Episode Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests