With very few exceptions, the collected U.S. media has forever ceded any right to gripe about the abridgement of its First Amendment rights in any situation short of actual, coercive government mandate. Like Stan said last week, there's a big difference between "believing" in free speech and fighting to protect it.

Moral of this story: terrorism works. For all of the hokey "If you do/don't do X, the terrorists win" stuff from five years ago, it actually applies here. And they won.

Oh yea, I forgot to put it in there: I say show it all.

I guess in the nature of the question it might be hard to say, but I would think that a show lampooning censorship saying, on the show, "Comedy Central censored this" is making a joke. It sort of proves their point--that a double standard exists--in a clever way. Does anyone have an explicit statement from a Comedy Central spokesman confirming they REALLY censored the show.(It's sort of like performance art, in a way...)

Censoring South Park is like trying to air condition hell... :-)

Since I haven't seen any commentary from Matt and Trey on this issue, I think they wrote the episode exactly as it aired. I don't think Comedy Central censored that, i think Matt and Trey wrote the censor in, to further drive home the point that censorship, no matter the culture or reason is stupid and wrong. They are trying to show that they can and will make fun of whoever they damn well please. And furthermore, they are pointing out the stupidity and hypocracy of the american christian public. So people will complain about them showing Jesus pooping on George Bush, and complain about censoring an image of Mohammed, but you never hear any complaints about the fact that Cartman makes fun of Kyle being Jewish in every episode i can remember. And he often calls him things like a "Rat Jew bastard" or accuses him of hoarding gold. Americans never stand up and complain about jew bashing on the show, but they will moan and complain about Mohammed censorship in one breath and complain about negative images of Jesus in the next? Matt and Trey learned well from George Carlin: everything is funny in the right context. and if we as a people aren't allowed to make the jokes, then whats the point of being free, or for that matter, being alive?

Oh, and yes, Mohammed was one of the Super Best Friends, in an episode they did several years ago, in season 5. and no one started a riot or burned anything down then. Oh, and if i haven't offered enough opinions yet, here's one more: I don't care what your religion says about depictions of Mohammed or Jesus or anyone. If you start a riot or commit acts of violence because someone drew a picture, than you are an asshole and you are not a civilized human being. If you commit acts of violence in the name of religion, any religion (this goes just as much for christians who do things like bomb abortion clinics) then you don't deserve to live in civilization with the rest of us, and you should be jailed forever for not only your act but for making everyone who peacefully believes what you do look bad.

Of course, South Park has also had problems with other religions recently...

Absent any word to the contrary, I think the best assumption is that the episode aired exactly as planned. As DoubleDownRob notes, those inserted titles provide them with a good way to make fun of Christians and Muslims both.

John,

CC is clever enough to make money off the attention even though the show made fun of the network. The controversy attracts viewers without alienating sponsors. Assuming the network execs are willing to look like pansies so long as they can be wealthy pansies, it's entirely plausible that they censored the show and let it air with the "Comedy Central has refused..." note.

All of a sudden, the marketplace of ideas fails. It's amazing how conservatives "discover" the fact that private organizations can exert political power when the mood strikes them.....

Since Comedy Central is not the government, and South Park entered into their contracts freely, isn't it in liberterianworld by definition not censorship? What am I missing here, other than the conservative issue du jour (the right to offend people based on their...religion? Well, conservatives have never been accused of consistency! :) )

Justin said: Since Comedy Central is not the government, and South Park entered into their contracts freely, isn't it in liberterianworld by definition not censorship? What am I missing here, other than the conservative issue du jour (the right to offend people based on their...religion? Well, conservatives have never been accused of consistency! :) )

Calling something censorship doesn't equate to calling it illegal, or suggesting that it be remedied by law. No one here has suggested, so far, that CC has no right to censor its shows, just that it's a bad idea for it to do so. Something like: I disagree with what you don't say, but I'll defend to the death your right not to say it.

PS: I'm with those that believe that the episode was either written as aired or, at most, that Matt and Trey pitched it expecting to have the scene censored (as Major suggested above.)

However, I'd say pooping Jesus is a bit contrary to Christianity.

I think I missed that lesson in Sunday school.

I belive that Matt and Trey censored the episode themselves for one reason and one reason only. They Love to make people freak out. It is genius that that episode got censored (weather intentional or not), because you were all expecting to see an image of Mohammed and you did'nt get to see it. I think that was planed to a tee and it's exaclty what the entire episode is about. They know that we have all seen Mohammed in the Super Best freinds Episode. It was genius for them to censor it because you wern't missing anything that you havent all ready seen.

Which brings me to the bigger picture. A Cartoon image of Mohammed giving a football helmet with a fish on it to another cartoon image was sensored and were all ticked about it. Were not ticked about the fact that we did not get to actually see somthing as minial as that, were ticked off because it was "censored". That in and off itself was a demonstration of just how precious and important freedom of speech really is. This eposide was a civic's leson. We all learned just how much we value our freedoms by having it taken from us for a brief second even when the topic was so minial that really nobody would have cared if it was in any other situation.

Good Stuff!

I keep hearing the SP announcer saying "Who censored South Park"

The Mohammed in the SuperBestFriends episode is not so relevant, because that was before the Islamists decided to create a violent controversy over depictions of Mohammed. It did take months before the Danish cartoons were turned into a cause for rioting.

I am assuming you guys are joking about all this right? I mean, clearly this was part of their joke.

People, you’re missing the point of the episode. The whole thing is a shot at Comedy Central for not airing "Trapped in the Closet" after Isaac Hayes left the show and Tom Cruise allegedly threatened Comedy Central if they aired that episode again (which pokes fun at scientology).

Not showing Muhammad was a deliberate jab at Comedy Central for not showing the scientology episode again, in fact both these recent episodes were about Comedy Central using the disguise of the Islam cartoons.

Reality Man,

That goes without saying, but what does that have to do with the topic of this thread, which is "Did Comedy Central Censor South Park?" (again).

oh and here is the link to the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_Wars_Part_II

There is one way to find out whether this was censorship or just another joke: Wait for the DVD release.

When you watch the show on DVD, it's on, well, your DVD player, not on Comedy Central, so what they do or don't want to put on their network is irrelevant.

If the two text panels are still there in place of Mohammed, then it's pretty safe to conclude that those are part of the gag. If, on the other hand, Mohammed is actually shown on the DVD version, then it's just as safe to conclude that Comedy Central did, in fact, censor the image of Mohammed.

Of course there's also a third possibility, that the DVD distributor might have the Mohammed images censored, in which case the text panels would presumably remain, with the second one changed accordingly.

I think the point is that while one should condemn the violence in Denmark, people on the right are coming off like a bunch of hypocrites who hate brown people.

Let's not forget that showing Mohommad *is* offensive..to all Muslims, not just the ones who riot. If I go around offending Christianity every time some Christians did something stupid in the name of Christ, I'd be labeled a jack***. Because, I'd be one!!

And yet the right seems to orgasm every time Islam is offended (come on, let's do it!!! Let's reprint the cartoons!!!! It's..uhh...1st Amendment!!! or wait, private..that doesn't work...okay, it's CENSORSHIP!!!). And when people decide to act in good taste, the right goes nuts on them.

I doubt it was censored in this instance. But if it was, are you really going to sit here and go apesh** over Comedy Central's decision not to offend people? Granted, Comedy Central offends people all the time, but if you're going to get actually ANGRY at them not offending one particular group of people...that's bigotry, and there's no way around that.

Yes, Jake. Comedy Central is bigoted against 98% of their consuming audience. They just don't like you and hope you die. ::shakes head::

Sorry, that was meant for TallDave.

I don't think, btw, that Muslems are asking Comedy Central to offend, say, Mormans. That's just not their battle. And if the ADL is more concerned about Anti-Semitism than they are about, say, racism, that's not bigotry in my book.

Well, Joshua, two points

1) One of the major incentives large corporations have to not be offensive is the boycott. That's called a free market. (The idea that Comedy Central is worried about riots in Studio City is patently absurd).

2) Wouldn't a much more reasonable alterntative to this illogical "fear of reprisal" be that when they first showed it several years ago they were not aware that it was particularly offensive?

Justin, as much as you wish it were so, no one is orgasming at the thought of Islam being offended. It's hardly an unnatural or an indefensible reaction, when confronted with a conditional threat to assert your right to free speech by defying the condition.

Seriously, don't you ever get tired of the whole "neo-cons have texas crude and blood of innocents pumping through their blackened hearts" schtick? The DU is that way.

Justin,

Yes, saying "we're going censor the mocking of Mohammed, but not anyone's else's sacred cow" is bigoted.

If you don't think so, consider the reaction if they aired an episode that mocked every religious figure except Jesus, on the grounds the Religious Right would get angry. We'd hear umpteen ACLU lawyers decrying our "theocracy."

Justin: "I think the point is that while one should condemn the violence in Denmark, people on the right are coming off like a bunch of hypocrites who hate brown people."

How so? Everyone here is talking about censorship because of the threat of violence. It has nothing to do with anyone's race or color. Stop projecting your psychological biases onto people discussing this topic.

"If I go around offending Christianity every time some Christians did something stupid in the name of Christ, I'd be labeled a jack***."

Christianity is insulted nearly every day on this blog. You can't read a thread related to religion here without somebody deliberately and intentionally insulting Christianity. And being labeled a jack*** is hardly the worst thing to befall you. It's no crime, and it is hardly the equivilent of threatening violence on someone. Something which, none of the Christians on this blog who've been insulted have never done, I might point out.

The word 'censorship', in order to mean anything in a political context, has to include the (implied) threat of force. If Comedy Central decides that they don't want to air another depiction of Muhammed, that is 'editorial discretion'. It doesn't prevent others from transmitting whatever they want. On the other hand, when islamofascists threaten violence against anyone who does it, that's censorship. On the gripping hand, if the reason CC decides to exercise editorial discretion is the threat of violence, then it's also self-censorship.

And once again, the idea that Comedy Central is worried about violence being done to it in Studio City, Los Angeles,CA is rediculous. Just because it's a rallying cry of the right doesn't mean it isn't absurd on its face.

but if you were just going to do something purely for the purposes of being offensive towards Christianity,

Dude. Have you ever even SEEN South Park?

Correction - Muslims are not threatening to blow themselves up on buses. They are actually doing it.

Terrorism truly works. If Christians want to stop offensive depictions of Christ, they must recruit suicide bombers. Nothing short of that works, but that works very well.

It is also worth noting that the "Super Best Friends" episode ran in syndication on March 13, 2006, after the controversy erupted, and no one made a peep.

Oh, one last thing I should point out:

The entire original Mohammed cartoon controversy was a fraud.

It was cooked by power-hungry mullahs who went around showing the cartoons along with some fake pictures (one wasn't even of Mohammed) to stir up resentment.

That's why, as nooner points out, the original S Park episode with Mohammed drew no controversy. The reality is, most Muslims don't really care. It's mostly just a few extremists and opportunists.

Phil,

I don't agree with Justin, but to be fair, that's not at all what he's saying.

What he's saying is this: you have a legal right to offend Christians, and a legal right to offend Muslims. However, if you're a good person, you won't go out and do it for no reason. The fact that a bunch of Muslims went crazy when someone offended them and Christians generally take it with a little more sang-froid doesn't mean that you're not kind of a jerk if you go around offending people just for the giggles.

Here is a link to the picture of mohammed in the credits of the episode:

The resolution is pretty low, and there's basically no chance that the casual viewer would pick him out, but you can tell it is him by comparing it to pictures from "Super Best Friends":

Guys, guys. And gals. The whole point of showing Jesus in a context most Christians would consider highly offensive is this:

people who do so are usually lauded by their moonbat peers as "BRAVE", "COURAGEOUS", etc. etc. ad nauseam. What Trey and Parker have shown us is that it is not brave at all to abuse followers of a religion that espouses love and turning the other cheek. "Ooh, look at all the nasty emails! We're so brave!" It's just a cheap bid for an Oscar.

Real courage would be offending wackos who threaten your very life. And it's apparently lacking at all levels of the mainstream media.

Another point, of course, is that all those smug appeals for tolerance don't apply to Christianity. Thus the NYT refuses to show the Muhammad cartoons because of not wanting to offend Muslims, yet shows in the same paper a photo of a painting of the Virgin Mary smeared with dung.

It seems to me that the point of this was to make fun of Islam.

exhel, to the (limited) extent that you are right, a system of beliefs that says "do as we say or we blow you up," should by all means be made fun of. To the extent that Islam <i>doesn't</i> say that, it was not mocked on South Park.

Justin said: And I think anyone who fights for their right to offend Christians are like those Christians who fight for their rights to offend homosexuals.

EstablishmentClaus said: What he's saying is this: you have a legal right to offend Christians, and a legal right to offend Muslims. However, if you're a good person, you won't go out and do it for no reason.

That's hardly the point. The larger issue is that is that one man's offense is another's criticism, or political commentary, or protest. However, the freedom to do all of the above is often won at the margin by what seems to people like Justin as offense for offense's sake.

Even the offense for offense's sake that seem to get your panties in a twist is actually commentary on what many see as the hypocrisy and hypersensitivity of some Muslims. Consider the chronology: 1)Cartoons published, 2)Muslims say they're offended and start burning things, 3)Many American media outlets self-censor to avoid number 2, 4)South Park mocks number 3. Exactly what part of that involves South Park's supporters hating brown people?

They are lampooning current events. If the Christian Right suddenly claims offense to portrayals of George Bush as a moron, you can bet that American media will be "fight[ing] for their rights to offend" him, because what some have labeled as offense also happens to be their job.

The reason it's bad to divide speech into worthwile commentary and tasteless insult is that the contents of those categories will then depend on who's holding the gun.

BTW, the whole group blame thing is so 1939. Stop blaming "Islam" for a small percentage of the idiots who riot and murder. I guess people are afraid of anything where you can list 2 people who died for those reasons. Maybe I should go divest all my money, since more than 2 people were killed for having money.

I think EC sums up my thoughts pretty generally.

People here seem to think that offending Muslims is serving some sort of political message. If I believed that, I'd be fine with the anger in "censoring" that (though, of course, the Dixie Chicks should be banned from all radio! ;) ). Goodness knows that so-called religious leaders in Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Denmark need to learn that what they're doing to their own people and to other peoples is NOT okay.

But I'm not getting a political message from most of the audience. I'm getting the desire to be a political message, but that seems secondary, only searched for upon request. Mainly this is, "hey, dude, let's go make the Muslims go bat**** again. Got any more (if you're in HS) pot? (if you're a college graduate) scotch?"

And while I have no problem with South Park actually offending Muslims (really, its not that big of a deal to be offended, and that's their raison d'etre), which they apparently did, I have no doubt it's because Trey and Matt are immature and juvenile (which is their right, and they're darned good at it), not to serve some greater political message.

<blockquote>
BTW, the whole group blame thing is so 1939
</blockquote>
OK, Paging Dr. Godwin...

Justin, the claim that only a small percentage of Muslims have corrupted the otherwise peaceful religion has been demolished handily, too many times. I won't bother to restate it here, except to remind you of demonstrations in the Muslims world, post 9/11.

And divestment is so ISM. No one is saying that we should divest from Muslim countries. We want to see them come into this world, not out of it.

PS take a look at these Pew numbers. I know that facts are pesky when they get in the way of a good disjointed diatribe, but here you go anyway:
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248 ;

Note that those are the "new and improved" numbers, with support for terrorism "waning."

No, Justin. If you divest yourself of money because people threaten to kill you because you have it, you're giving in to terrorism.

I am 100% convinced that Justin, and quite a few others in this thread, have seen maybe 5 episodes total of South Park, if that. Seriously. A vast majority of the last few years of episodes have had an obvious 'greater message' or some political commentary, as did their movie "Team America". They even made fun of themselves for this very characteristic in this week's episode.

The episodes this week and the last were a dig on Comedy Central for pulling the Scientology episode, a dig on Family Guy (they HATE Family Guy) for being nothing but non sequitur jokes, a dig on themselves for being preachy, and a dig on all the people who throw away free speech because they're afraid of terrorism. The "censored" panel of Muhammed was clearly part of the episode, not something foisted on them by Comedy Central -- the message is significantly stronger with a "censored" panel than without, not to mention the fact that I'm sure they knew it would provoke talk about the episode (thereby increasing ratings).

Reality Man is right -- if you don't get it, quit watching the show. You had to know they were goofing around with it from the moment they made it look like Comedy Central was censoring it by pulling the episode and airing a Terrance and Phillip special.

Justin,

People here seem to think that offending Muslims is serving some sort of political message. If I believed that, I'd be fine with the anger in "censoring" that

Did you see the episode? Are you blind? They explicitly depicted the president of a television network agonizing over the decision to show Mohammed out of fear of explicitly shown threats of violence if Mohammed were depicted. And then, to make sure you didn't miss the double standard, after refusing to show the Mighty Mo' "just standing there", they showed Christ being defecated on. As someone else pointed out, they were so busy making political commentary, they forgot to be funny.

It was not only clearly political, it wan't even subtle about it. The fact that you're able to miss it says far more about your world view than it does about the episode in question.

And when you think about it, a lot of the reason why we have the Welfare/Redistribution/Regulation State is because of fear of the terrorists in the '60s who said they'd "burn that mother down!". By giving in to the demands of organized threat groups, we've reinforced the Hate Whitey rhetoric of the professional race-baiters, whose demands for 'justice' only increase.

Now we're seeing the same thing play out with the immigration issue. The implied threat is that the 12 million illegal immigrants will become violent if we try to deport them, or even if we try to keep even more illegals from crossing our borders.

I'm guessing that the South Park guys had been told long before that they could not show Muhammad. They gave Comedy Central a chance to reverse the policy, but they didn't. Had they kept Muhammad in there, either the entire episode would have been pulled or Comedy Central would have simply cut out the Muhammad part. The result is the same either way: no Muhammad. By doing it this way South Park gets to voice its criticism of Comedy Central (did anybody ever really believe that Comedy Central stuck in that slide?)

Also, if Comedy Central didn't tell South Park that they couldn't show Muhammad, I would think that by Comedy Central would have said something to fend off all the complaints they must be getting.

Steven Spruiell contacted Comedy Central and got confirmation that there was, indeed, a decision by Comedy Central to not allow them to depict in this episode Mohammed.

As such, those who have been saying that it was a gag that Comedy Central was in on, and not a case of Comedy Central being the pussies that South Park was portraying them as, are off base.

In fact, one could say that the presumption that there was no censorship was exactly the kind of head-in-the-sand, refuse-to-see-what's-going on behaviour that was being pilloried so brilliantly in these episodes.

"What irritated me was the anger people had against Comedy Central for what they misbelieved was Comedy Central's desire not to piss off Muslims - for what? Obviously, for the sake of pissing off Muslims."

Jesus being deficated on doesn't offend Christians? The bleeding Mary episode doesn't offend Catholics?

It is obvious that you have a double standard. Offending Christians is ok. Offending Muslims is bad because they'll kill you. The obvious lesson is for Christians to get violent. That won't be forgotten. Especially since Christians have been the whipping boy of the Left for the past several decades.

"I'm simply trying to show that the argument being used by many of you to justify your anger at not pissing off Muslims is not the argument you actually believe"

I don't know about others, but do not presume to tell me what I believe, Justin.

I'm angry at Comedy Central for having a double standard. They insult the Virgin Mother, insult Jesus, and all Christians. And yet they have no problem with making sure Muslims aren't offended. It's a hypocritical double standard. If you're in the business of making a provocative, offensive show, then fair's fair.

Why aren't you complaining about CC showing Jesus being deficated on? Why not complain about the Virgin Mary?

In fairness, Sydney, Justin never said "Offending Christians is ok. Offending Muslims is bad." Even if he is one of "the Left." (Hey, how come they get a capitalization and we on "the right" don't? No fair, Justin!)

I still think he is misstating the larger point in that he feels "the right" is mad that Moslems weren't offended while Christians were. I dare say that most on "the right" would say that neither religion should be offended, but most strenuously object to the idea that SP, CC or anyone else may feel they can't offend Islam due to an actual or perceived threat. The offending of Chritianity in this episode simply helped to amplify the issue and make this contrast even more stark.

The issue being discussed is not one of should but can. And I think all of us, from both "the right" and "the Left" can agree that regardless of the propriety o fthe former the latter should be inviable.

Justin:

I can name several thousand who suffered even though they weren't anti-Muslim.

"In fairness, Sydney, Justin never said "Offending Christians is ok. Offending Muslims is bad." Even if he is one of "the Left.""

He presumes to tell me what I believe. So, in fairness, I'll presume to tell HIM what HE believes: Justin officially believes offending Christians is ok, and offending Muslims is bad.

The guy is a complete hypocrite and is defending the show's censoring of Muslims because he thinks it's good taste. But he hasn't said a WORD about the show's offense of Christians in the VERY NEXT SCENE. You're darn right that the episode amplified the issue. And his denial in the face of the obvious proves he's a hypocrite.

Okay, I have to go back to work. One more:

Justin, is your argument that it's OK to offend if it's done politically, but South Park hasn't risen to that level, or rather you can look across the internet into others hearts and determine their true motiviations?

It's closer to the latter, it's certainly not the former. It's okay (if ill advised) to offend for whatever the reason. However, it's distressing to see a bunch of people getting emotionally involved in the hope of offending others.

Your latter argument is framing what I'm saying in a patently silly way. Though this is not quite to that level, would you make the same argument about someone who claims his membership in the Klu Klux Klan was simply their support of traditional family structure? Who can say what was in the hearts and mind of the rioters who attacked the Danish embassy? Perhaps they were simply there because the Danish minister made calls to their mothers and insulted them?

If the concern I have is bigotry, there is no other way to do it than to ascribe motivations to people's actions. Remember, that's the whole objection to hate crimes. Maybe we should never be concerned about bigotry, I guess. But that seems counter to the history of human civilization.

If the arguments you make for why people are offended by South Park's decision not to show Mohammad, which by its own message ONLY goes to the purpose of insulting Islam don't make sense outside the scope of bigotry, then why should I ignore that?

"So people will complain about them showing Jesus pooping on George Bush, and complain about censoring an image of Mohammed, but you never hear any complaints about the fact that Cartman makes fun of Kyle being Jewish in every episode i can remember. And he often calls him things like a "Rat Jew bastard" or accuses him of hoarding gold. Americans never stand up and complain about jew bashing on the show, but they will moan and complain about Mohammed censorship in one breath and complain about negative images of Jesus in the next?"

Maybe the reason they don;t complain is that Cartman is an ass. The very fact that Cartman says something is a signal that it is quite likely stupid. Now if Kyle or Stan or a pre-Super Adventure Club Chef said something that offensive, it might be taken seriously.

Justin, if you want to make a Dixie Chick analogy, I think it would be more relevent if you could find a radio station that refused to play Dixie Chicks but did play music from another band that had made similar statements overseas and received a similar amount of exposure and press. If a radio station or record store decided to remove the Dixie Chicks they were clearly making the statement, right or wrong, "we believe they acted against the best interests if America, so we do not support them." What equivalent statement would CC be making by not offending Moslems but still offending Christians? It certainly isn't "this is in bad taste, so we won't show it." In short, it is either a message of fear and intimidation or a message of inconsistancy.

As to the idea that the DC were "censored," I don't think that word applies when a radio station or even WalMart says "we disagree with this artist's belief and therefore won't support them," because these entities do not control all access to the message. The DC's comments were blasted around the world by thousands of news papers. These comments led to numerous interviews and cover stories. Please expain again how not playing the song "White Trash Wedding" equates to censorship of their widely reported and explored political opinion? I think my perspective is most common, that nothing was wrong per se with them expressing their opinion, but that wasn't what they did. Far from offering an opinion, they simply insulted a war-time President in a foreign country. It was that which I personally found offensive.

As to your tour of the "right wing blogs," please consider again my earlier comment that your existant bias may be more informing you than their actual words. You expect "the right" to be a bunch of bigotted, narrow-minded racist pigs and therefore that is what you find. Much the same way Sydney sees "the Left" as hell-bent of destroying traditions and Christianity, and so that is what he finds in your comments.

And for the record, if a bunch of left-handed dog groomers got in an uproar, destroyed a bunch of property and killed several people over some cartoons in an obscure Angolan weekly I'd sure as all get out want to see those pictures.

Comedy Central should pay for their self-censorship of the Cartoon Wars episode.

Justin: "I think the issue is *should*....it's distressing to see a bunch of people getting emotionally involved in the hope of offending others."

Justin is viewing this from a typically left-wing perspective, which is why his statements are so mind-numbing. He thinks the issue is SHOULD. He doesn't think we SHOULD offend Muslims. But the offense of Christians in the very next scene didn't raise his ire, implying that one SHOULD offend Christians. Why should one offend Christians? Because, as a leftist, he views them as imposing their morality on American society. As a leftist, he also discounts the reality of Muslims violence (probably while increasing the value of any Christian boycots or other non-violent influences). He also fails to understand that the purpose of showing Mohammed wasn't to offend, per se, but to contrast the inability to show Mohammed with ability to show Jesus. He assumes that the intent to show Mohammed was to merely offend, because acknowledging the contrast would call into question his leftist assumptions about the evils of Christianity (they don't riot when offended, and don't kill the people who offend them).

That's the explanation for Justin. He fails to acknowledge that the entire point behind this episode was not to offend, per se, but to contrast how EASY it is to offend Christians while showing how HARD it is to offend Muslims. But if he recognized that, the bogeyman of Christianity would be dispelled and that would leave him hanging.

Depite his delusions, sooner or later, reality will intrude on him. This situation cannot last forever. How many editors and authors will be silenced by the threat of Islam before they realize how stupid it is for them to be able to piss all over Jesus while hold false piety about a religion that uses violence to get its way? People won't stand for this much longer, no matter how often Justin whines about it.

To Justin:
All of your points are totally irrelevant with the simple fact that nothing -in the topic of cartoon wars- has ever been intentionally done to incite or enrage muslims. They did it to themselves to incite fear in the western media. Know you stuff when you decide to post on blogs. If this is how your really think, I wonder how you put on your velcro sneakers in the morning before you get on the short bus to...work of all places. You must be a bastion of Liberal thought at the Happy Day Special Needs Work Placemnt Program.

Justin,

Your perspective is warped. I can't make heads or tails of it.

Do you really believe that people who don't share your political viewpoint (those evil "conservatives") are a bigger concern than people who don't share your political viewpoint and have killed thousands of your fellow countrymen? And continually threaten to kill more? Who have limited the bounds of permissable discourse in your country through violence? Who believe that to die killing you will guarantee them entry to paradise? Who have just announced nuclear enrichment capability? I believe you do.

That's why I'm unhappily but slowly becoming a Republican.

To cancel out your vote.

Oh my... Of course that was part of the joke. Geez, the freaking episode wasn't even about Mohammed. It was about Isaac Hayes (Chef). And it was brilliant. That two-parter ought to win Matt and Trey an Emmie.

Whoever called Comedy Central to ask for an official comment. OMG, you should have had someone else disgrace themselves. They are laughing at you hard today. I can just imagine the phone conversation...

"Hi, I think there is a turd in my punchbowl. Can you confirm that it is a turd?"

"Well, not exactly."

You know there are going to be legitimate hurt feelings over this in the blogosphere too. Unbefreakinlievable.

Mackey,
the image after the self-censorship image was a picture of the dad from Family Guy (don't know his name, can't stand FG) holding a football helmet with a salmon on top.
I have no idea what a "salmon helmet" is supposed to be.

Just a few thoughts, and I may be wrong about them.

Look at our behaviors and reactions right now, because of how the episode was aired.

Now, imagine the behavior of people if the image of Mohammed was aired.

If the image of Mohammed was censored, would we all be on these boards arguing about protecting the freedom of speech as actively? Perhaps, if the image were shown uncensored, then those of us who believe in fighting for free speech would feel satisfied that someone else has done it for us, thereby ruining the message that we SHOULD be up in arms about protecting free speech. We would be complacent, we would not fight for protecting our freedoms.

That is my thought; that Mohammed was intended to be censored as a stimulus for proactive actions towards protecting free speech. It riled us up. That's what Matt and Trey are good at.

Really, imagine how those of us, who believed that Mohommed should be uncensored, would really feel or act if he really was uncensored.

But those are merely my thoughts on the matter. We all have our oppinions, and that is what we will have until facts come out. I would like to think that Matt and Trey thought this out much farther than most of us realize.

I haven't seen South Park in a couple of seasons (the "Return of Chef" episode aside), but I thought Kenny actually WAS killed, like for real and permanently, a while back. Am I wrong? What happened?
And did you hear the one about the atheists who stormed a London newspaper office when someone found half a dozen blank sheets of paper on the cartoonist's desk?

I don't think "salmon helmet" was simply meant to be absurd. I could be wrong.

However, I'd say pooping Jesus is a bit contrary to Christianity.

I think I missed that lesson in Sunday school.

Me, too, but then again, I also missed the lesson where they taught us he didn't poop. I can't say I remember any lessons from grade school about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln pooping, either, but the smart money says they did.

If anyone missed the update, it's official: IT WAS CENSORED by Comedy Central.

To begin with, this particular post irritated me more than all the others, so i will start by smacking it.

Reader: I don't mean to say this shouldn't be protected by the First Amendment. I simply mean to say they shouldn't air it, and we shouldn't watch it. It may be legal to tell a stranger she's fat and ugly, but it's also wrong.

You're fat and ugly. Yeah. i said it. and its wrong. i also think its funny. So to quote another Fox show, "bite my shiny metal ass."

Let me see if i can hit everything i want to in one post before my hunger takes over and i go find food.

1. What the episode actually covered: I won't say this is an exhaustive list, but here's what i caught: Scientology, Family Guy, violence in the name of religion, Comedy Central, Matt and Trey getting preachy, the Simpsons, jokes that have nothing to do with plot, the U.S. citizenry being pussies, Christianity.

2. Can SP do something like this: Yes, they can, and they did.

3. Did Comedy Central censor/edit/whatever the episode: IF this was a network decision, i agree with the posters who think it happened before the episode was written. I however, still believe that Matt and Trey wrote the episode exactly as it aired. and if i am correct, then calling comedy central and asking them is pointless, because of course they are going to tell you that it was a network decision. that's how it's supposed to look. and furthermore, Mohammad (or as someone called him, Mighty Mo') appears in the freaking credits! if comedy central intended to screen out all images of the prophet, why did they leave that one in?

4. Should they have done this: since i can't increase my font size, just imagine this in like 60pt font: YES! First of all, i am a firm believer in the fact that your beliefs aren't real until they are questioned. Second, Matt and Trey aren't bigots. they will make fun of everyone, christian, buddhist, scientologist, athiest, muslim, jewish, whoever. Their point from day one has been that nothing is sacred, that everything can be funny, and moreover, everything should be funny. When we can't laugh at ourselves, when we can't look back and see absurdity, that's when we get so caught up that we get crazy. An earlier poster on here said that part of the reason that Islamists (not Islamics, there's a difference) are the way they are is because their beliefs go unchallenged. I think that is pretty accurate. If you are never challenged in what you believe, then you have no other perspective from which to examine what you believe. If you have only one perspective for long enough, your worldview becomes so cemented that you believe any attack on what you believe is an attack on you. and thus you respond with violent self defense. Matt and Trey are doing the right thing by offending whoever they can whenever they can, and we are all better for it. the fact that they are hilarious when doing so makes it even better.

5. was the episode funny: I suppose if you aren't a fan of the show, you might not think that episode was particularly funny. I would contend that just the background images were hilarious enough, but whatever. If you are a real fan of the show (i'm pretty sure i've seen every episode at least once, and if i've missed any, its less than 10 episodes), that episode should have been hilarious to you. Cartman and Kyle slapfighting? freaking great. Also, if you watch family guy (and i do enough to get references), that episode was hilarious (unless you are terribly offended by digs at family guy, in which case, well, you are fat and ugly.)

6. Salmon helmet: I think it actually was just meant to be absurd, as a further smack on family guy. Many of family guy's jokes are just absurdities and non sequitors, and i think that was what Matt and Trey intended. While they certainly do put a lot of subtext into their work and there tends to be a lot of meaning underneath the surface, they aren't generally so obtuse that their fans can't fairly quickly understand the reference.

7. as i noted in my post last night, if you respond to someone questioning your beliefs of any nature with violence, then you are an asshole, and you are not civilized. that goes for everyone. The way to combat speech you don't like is with more speech, not molotov cocktails.

8. My hunger has now conquered my willingness to write more. so to sum up, Matt and Trey rock, the ep is an instant classic, and if you disagree with anything i said, well, you're fat and ugly. =)

Double Down.
My only criticism is that I found part 1 much funnier with the Big Wheels chase.

Rules of Insults:

If someone insults you, top it.
If you can't top it, ignore it.
If you can't ignore it, walk away from it.
If you can't walk away from it, you probably deserve it.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that everyone in America (at a minimum) should have the right to publish and disseminate all the images of Mohammad they want. The issue of *can*, at least vis a vis the government, is not contested. Nor do I think it is the issue. I think the issue is *should*.

Justin, if Jews told you (or if Muslims did) that eating pork was offensive to us, would you argue that you "should" stop doing it?

The important thing to understand is that pictures of Mohammed are not deemed "offensive" by Muslims. That's western liberal primarily-college-campus terminology. Rather, they're deemed blasphemous, because depicting Mohammed might lead to worship of Mohammed which would be idolatry. In other words, this is about members of one religion trying to impose their religious views on people who don't subscribe to their religion.

They've been showing Mohammed in every season 10 opening...he's in the crowd shot on the right.

Click Here

Schaller, since the only specific points you mentioned were the use of '*' vice '"' and a reference to an argument being "full of holes", I will respond assuming you were prompted to post by my comment.

First, the '*' has enjoyed use as a means to emphasize a word long before HTML allowed us to do so more elegantly. I chose to emphasize the word "should" in this manner since Justin had previously done so and I was specifically replying to his comment. Also, since this was done to emphasize the meaning of the word rather than in reference to the word itself (or as is more common today, to express a sense of not quite believing the word is being approriately used), I believe the use of quotation marks would have been incorrect.

Second, I think I understand Justin's argument very well and still stand by my description of it as as being full of holes. This is because his entire point is rooted in an unproven assumption. He argues from teh position that the author of this post and many of the commenters are angry because CC chose not to offend Moslems. His position is entirely dependent upon the assumption that many of "the right" think if CC offends Christians they should also equally offend Moslems. On the contrary, I see the issue being discussed as why CC would willfully and repeatedly offend people of various religions and persuasions but go out of their way to try and avoid offending Moslems. In this episode is was simply the juxtiposition of a scene offensive to Christians that emphasized this disparity, but it could just as easilly been some offensive joke about Jews, gays, blacks, Mexicans, etc. Justin even went so far as to say "the right" was getting mad at CC for "act[ing] in good taste," which completely ignores the other 90% of the show, including the Jesus-poop scene often talked about. If this argument isn't more transparent than half the products in a Victoria's Secret catalog I can only question your eyesight.