*1004: Cartoon Wars Part II*

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

Moderator: Big-Will

the_KGB
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:59 am

Postby the_KGB » Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:09 am

This episode was great. It didn't have me worried at the, "The conclusion to Cartoon Wars... will not be shown tonight!" I got a good laugh out of that.

Damn you, CC(CP), for not showing Muhammad! I hope he's shown on the DVD, which won't be out for so long that the issue might be cleared, or Freedom of Speech won't exist.
pitchblank
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 11:45 pm

Re: Skipping the Flame wars...

Postby pitchblank » Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:09 am

PanSavant wrote:Now granted, this does not clear up the issue as to whether Muhammed was actually drawn/animated or not...but the context of this email seems to say it was made clear beforehand that it wouldn't be shown:


...which is why we gave them carte blanche in every facet but one: we would not broadcast a portrayal of Muhammad.


Anyways, just thought I would share
[now up to six cents worth]


Interesting, thanks for sharing.

Well, it's a long and well worded statement, but fundamentally flawed. Just goes to show what happens when you think too much.

The first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Comedy Central is in fact 1) respecting an establishment of religion, and 2) abridging the freedom of speech. No but's or if's, these things are absolute, not relative.
mewster
Posts: 1879
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 4:49 am

Postby mewster » Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:10 am

cartman8213 wrote:
hainted wrote:I am totally ... hard?

Do you notice that nobody is on your side?


To give you an idea of how he wants to be treated. his first conversation with me ended with him telling me to suck his balls.

BTW, 8213, where in Charm City do you live? I was born in Md. General and grew up in Curtis Bay and Brooklyn Park.

aeb1barfo wrote:
nojo wrote:Meanwhile, back in 1969...

For those of you not born yet -- don't laugh, with any luck you'll reach my age -- the Smothers Brothers had a popular CBS show that addressed political issues of the day.

That would be the 1960s. People weren't just stoned, they were very, very angry. You had to be there. You want riots, let's visit Chicago. Or Watts. Or a few choice locations in the South.

So the Smothers Brothers program takes on these issues, and they keep running afoul of the CBS censors. Eventually they start delivering their episodes at the last minute, to give the censors less time to review them. And finally, CBS cancels them on a contractual technicality.

Different era, different show -- the comparisons are intriguing, if not precise. But just to amuse you, Viacom was split from CBS in the early 70s, and many corporate twists later, Viacom bought CBS.

And if you made it this far, a fun footnote: One of the writers for the Smothers Brothers? Super Dave.


I'll cover your Smothers Brothers and raise you a " Laugh In ". Image


As perhaps the only person here who was alive in 1969, albeit as a two-year-old, I've seen enough of both shows to know that Laugh-In was more of a parody of those times and SmoBro reflectedhose times more accurately.
Last edited by mewster on Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm now known as Cartman's Top Enemy. Please make a note of it.
pitchblank
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 11:45 pm

Postby pitchblank » Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:21 am

nojo wrote:pitchblank:

Damn, you're good.


Hey thanks, well... living next door to Denmark I kind of had a head start on this one.

I usually have a kneejerk reaction against resorting to the dictionary in substantive debate, but that's just the (smug alert!) Wittgenstein in me. Yours is the most cogent explanation of the issue I've seen yet


Cogent? Wow, I'll have to look that up. :wink:

I want to have your baby.


Hmm. You think it'll be a terrorist or just a regular bastard?
nojo
Posts: 600
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:51 am

Re: Skipping the Flame wars...

Postby nojo » Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:31 am

pitchblank wrote:Comedy Central is in fact 1) respecting an establishment of religion, and 2) abridging the freedom of speech. No but's or if's, these things are absolute, not relative.

But there's the rub: Comedy Central is not Congress. If the government attempted to prevent CC from broadcasting the scene ("prior restraint" in First Amendment lingo), the issue would be simple.

However, CC (more broadly, Viacom) is the legal beneficiary of the First Amendment in this case. The corporation is fully within its rights to choose what (and what not) to broadcast. As my J-school profs used to say, freedom of the press belongs to those who own one.

Matt & Trey, as individuals, are also beneficiaries of the First Amendment. They are completely at liberty to post a cartoon of Muhammed on a website they own. Nobody's stopping them.

They are not, however, at liberty to broadcast anything they'd like on Comedy Central. It's not their network, and they have no rights against it except what's spelled out in their contracts.

Them's the technicalities. Whatever we think Comedy Central *should* do, we have to acknowledge that legally they can do whatever the hell they want.
nojo
Posts: 600
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:51 am

Postby nojo » Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:44 am

mewster wrote:As perhaps the only person here who was alive in 1969, albeit as a two-year-old, I've seen enough of both shows to know that Laugh-In was more of a parody of those times and SmoBro reflectedhose times more accurately.

Just think -- a few more posts, and we can have a Laugh-In / Smothers Brothers flame war! Laugh-In was obviously an hour of random gags, while Smothers Brothers humor was more integral to the times.

Oh, and age? I think at least two of us here got you beat, since we're both relying on memories of the original network runs. (Laugh-In followed the Monkees on Monday nights. Thank you, I'll have my oatmeal now.)
pitchblank
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 11:45 pm

Re: Skipping the Flame wars...

Postby pitchblank » Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:56 am

nojo wrote:The corporation is fully within its rights to choose what (and what not) to broadcast.


They are indeed; by no means are they required to apply the law to its full extent. Then again one could argue that this, if anything, was an excellent (imho) opportunity to do so. I'm not in favor of overstepping boundaries, but I am in favor of occassionally checking that the boundaries haven't moved.

Here in Sweden, a political party (SD) put the Danish cartoons up on their webpage. The minister of foreign affairs, Laila Freivalds, had the site taken offline by reasons of national security, thus violating The Freedom of the Press Act and The Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression. She was later forced to resign.

Now we'll never know if something similar would have happened in the US. A precedent is needed here, and it's a bummer South Park won't be it... it could have gone down in history... "The Broflovski Bill"... 8)
nojo
Posts: 600
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:51 am

Re: Skipping the Flame wars...

Postby nojo » Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:44 am

pitchblank wrote:
nojo wrote:The corporation is fully within its rights to choose what (and what not) to broadcast.

They are indeed; by no means are they required to apply the law to its full extent. Then again one could argue that this, if anything, was an excellent (imho) opportunity to do so.

Geez, we're fighting in front of the baby already...

But I must quibble: Comedy Central is not an agent of government, and is in no position to "apply the law". You can fault them for not "exercising their rights", which indeed was a point made in the episode itself.

Should they have?

Personally, I don't know. If we were talking about another division of Viacom -- CBS News -- I would be hoarse with militancy. (Willllll-bur!) The American news media were the true pussies here, since they all refused to reprint the cartoons while covering the original story. It shouldn't be left to an entertainment network to do the job of a news agency.

That said, Comedy Central boasts about its "edgy" programming, and is more than happy to accept its Peabodys -- journalism awards -- for South Park and the Daily Show.

So I think it's fair to say they can't have it both ways, and that yes, they missed an opportunity to stand up for the rights they so happily exercise when less is at stake.

Whew. Only took me a couple of days to work that out...
pitchblank
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 11:45 pm

Re: Skipping the Flame wars...

Postby pitchblank » Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:18 am

nojo wrote:But I must quibble: Comedy Central is not an agent of government, and is in no position to "apply the law". You can fault them for not "exercising their rights", which indeed was a point made in the episode itself.


That's what I meant, but as I'm not a native English speaker I sometimes hit speedbumps - in which case I usually string a bunch of semi-random words together and cross my fingers. Like now.

Personally, I don't know. If we were talking about another division of Viacom -- CBS News -- I would be hoarse with militancy. (Willllll-bur!) The American news media were the true pussies here, since they all refused to reprint the cartoons while covering the original story. It shouldn't be left to an entertainment network to do the job of a news agency.


Yeah, that sucks - then again, Bin Ladin and his entourage are probably zapping between CNN/Fox News 24-7, so cabling out those cartoons through the news channels would just be cramming spicy brown danish down Osama's throat. CC on the other hand would sort of fly under the radar... I think.

I wish that Sirius thing Howard Stern is on now had a TV channel... that'd be just the ticket for Matt & Trey.
nojo
Posts: 600
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:51 am

Re: Skipping the Flame wars...

Postby nojo » Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:44 am

pitchblank wrote:That's what I meant, but as I'm not a native English speaker I sometimes hit speedbumps - in which case I usually string a bunch of semi-random words together and cross my fingers.

Hey, so do I!

Only as a native speaker, I don't have an excuse...

But really, your writing is so clear and eloquent, I figured you were an expat American living in Sweden. Now I'm even more impressed. Let's shoot for twins!

While I'm gushing, I sincerely do want to thank you for helping me clarify the issue. The point isn't that Comedy Central is free to censor the episode -- that was my hangup -- but that the network won't stand up for the very rights it otherwise boasts about.

Not that we should be surprised. These are the folks who caved in to Tom Cruise...
M00ndragon69
Posts: 9593
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2003 4:32 am

Postby M00ndragon69 » Sat Apr 15, 2006 7:02 am

hainted wrote:
Big-Will wrote:
cartman8213 wrote:Do you notice that nobody is on your side?

That's not why you post here. You post here to get your viewpoint across. If other people agree with you, great. :)



And if they disagree with you great.But there is a difference between disagreeing with someone's point and belittling them and insulting them and attacking them personally and flaming them. Especially when they aren't doing anything differently or saying anything differently than a whole bunch of other people here.

The unprovoked personal attacks and flames are really juvenile regardless of how you cleverly conceal them and the smugness and smarminess and hypocrisy of the way some here will single you out when there are 30 pages worth of posts where you can find similar targets just shows that their stupid little personal attacks are personal.

Well I guess since flaming seems so readilly allowed here and that the flamee is way more likely to incur the wrath of people around here,then I might as well just flame at will and be the one to actually start it for a change since I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't,so f*ck it.These boards are kind of a joke then aren't they?



LOL..I think I will sit this one out and let you continue to make an ass of yourself. Work was tiring tonight.


But anyway, what I want to know is what did everyone expect Comedy Central to do? Comedy Central is own by Viacom, which own MTV, VH-1, Nickelodeon, and tons of other cable channels..Viacom is a coporation, and their main goal is to make money, for them, that comes before freedom of speech and everything else. Of course they wouldn't air a picture of Muhhamad on the last episode after Muslims were rioting in Denmark over the same thing. They were afraid that the same thing could happen over Muhammad in the South Park cartoon, and that those impacted by the kind of destruction angry Muslims can cause would sue them. It would be the same thing with all the major cable channels, they wouldn't be willing to take that kind of risk..

As other people on here said, the only way Trey and Matt could have absolute freedom of what they put into their show would be to show it on the internet on a site they own.
Image
PKRWUD
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:32 am

Postby PKRWUD » Sat Apr 15, 2006 7:22 am

I just finished watching the "uncut version", and it did show Mohammed handing Peter the 'salmon helmet', unedited.

If you have a Mac, and the Acquisition ap, just enter 'South Park 1004', and it should come right up.
nojo
Posts: 600
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:51 am

Postby nojo » Sat Apr 15, 2006 7:37 am

PKRWUD wrote:I just finished watching the "uncut version", and it did show Mohammed handing Peter the 'salmon helmet', unedited.

While there is apparently an unreleased "uncensored" version, what you're watching is likely a fake.

That shot of Mohammed -- does he look like a South Park character, or a Family Guy character? The fake clip uses Mohammed from Super Best Friends, and some audio from the Bin Laden episode.

Turned up Thursday morning -- good job for a quick turnaround.
PKRWUD
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:32 am

Postby PKRWUD » Sat Apr 15, 2006 8:00 am

nojo wrote:
PKRWUD wrote:I just finished watching the "uncut version", and it did show Mohammed handing Peter the 'salmon helmet', unedited.

While there is apparently an unreleased "uncensored" version, what you're watching is likely a fake.

That shot of Mohammed -- does he look like a South Park character, or a Family Guy character? The fake clip uses Mohammed from Super Best Friends, and some audio from the Bin Laden episode.

Turned up Thursday morning -- good job for a quick turnaround.


It is the SP Mohammed. If it's a fake, it's an excellent job. I went through it several times, frame by frame, and it looks legit to me.

Here is a clip you can download and see for yourself. If it's a fake, it's a pretty good one, IMO.
nojo
Posts: 600
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:51 am

Postby nojo » Sat Apr 15, 2006 8:14 am

PKRWUD wrote:It is the SP Mohammed. If it's a fake, it's an excellent job. I went through it several times, frame by frame, and it looks legit to me.

It is a fake, and somewhere on the board is a link to someone who provided a frame-by-frame analysis.

One clue: Is there a Comedy Central logo during the few "restored" seconds? The logo only appears during broadcast episodes, and is not part of any original SP footage. An actual leaked clip would be "clean".

Return to “Spoilers/New Episode Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests