I am posting a separate story on VC based on my interview of South Park Executive Producer Anne Garefino. It answers some questions raised by commenters here.
I may edit or add to this post from time to time, without showing changes.
Feel free to comment on South Park below.
I reorganized the order of the paragraphs in the Garefino interview story to give more emphasis to the interview itself.
UPDATE (4:55 FRI): I wanted to point out that Anne Garefino's characterization of "fear" is consistent with the AP/WAPO characterization, based on an unnamed source: "The network's decision was made over concerns for public safety."
From my talking with people on both sides of the dispute, it appears that some of the arguments actually made in the negotiations over showing Mohammed found their way into the statements of Kyle and Cartman in "Cartoon Wars"--including probably Kyle referring to the president of Fox as "Doug," an obvious reference to Comedy Central's president, Doug Herzog.
Further, as many commenters below have noted, that Garefino had not heard of any specific threats against Comedy Central or anyone else because of "Cartoon Wars--Parts I and II" does not mean that Comedy Central's fears were unfounded. I think that there was a nontrivial chance that people would die if Comedy Central showed the cartoon as made--and any deaths might be traceable precisely to their decision to show Mohammed.
Of course, there is also a substantial chance that even more people will die if institutions give in to the actual or anticipated threats of religious terrorists. Here, though, the marginal impact of any one institution's cave-in is impossible to know, and thus, even if more people were to die ultimately from Comedy Central's decision to censor South Park, one would likely not be able to trace any resulting deaths to Comedy Central's decision to censor, rather than to many other societal decisions to restrict artistic and political speech.
Anyone who thinks that there was nothing at stake besides free speech in Comedy Central's decision isn't recognizing that "ideas have consequences"--for both good and ill.
Related Posts (on one page):
- We Hit the Big Time!
- Comedy Central Censored out of Fear, not Tolerance.--
- South Park Discussion Thread.--
- See the [FAKE] censored clip of Mohammed from South Park, now playing on the web.--
- Comedy Central Releases Brief Statement on Decision to Censor Mohammed.--
- Did Comedy Central Censor South Park?
- US sticks its head in sand to avoid seeing a Muhammed cartoon--coming to you on South Park tonight.--
What does this say for the independence of shows like the Daily Show and Colbert Report, if the network can be bullied so easily?
I wonder if the Daily Show or Colbert Report will have any coverage (and what kind), and whether they'll do the proper "this is news about us" disclaimers....
The debate continues over whether backing down out of "fear" is a wise decision, though...
If Comedy Central just censored this out of fear, they're pretty ignorant of what actually happened in Denmark (or, more to the point, in the Middle East, along with a nutjob Danish wahabbist wannabe.)
http://www.thevelvethottub.com
http://www.velvethottub.com
THE VELVET HOT TUB
In a comment on a much earlier post relating to European reaction to the cartoons, I noted that Neville Chamberlain has more heirs in Europe than Churchill does. I fear I understated Chamberlain's influence. Apparently his position has carried the day in the U.S. as well.
I mean, typically all business care about is furthering important liberal democratic values like free speech, civil rights, etc. Why break from that long tradition now? I demand answers.
Putting this in another context, if this were about cartoons making fun of racism, South Park can still do it (and they do, i.e., Token) without it being considered too offensive. This does not make it tasteful or appropriate for anyone and everyone to do so.
What's got me irritated is that this particular episode received a huge of word-of-mouth plus all the regular commercial marketing leading up to it. It seems to me that Comedy Central milked the controvery to score ratings and caved anyway. They must be pretty proud of themselves, having had their cake and eaten it too.
Anyway, this member of the 18 to 24 male demographic doesn't really feel like watching much Comedy Central anymore. This whole brouhaha really illustrates the point that artistic integrity doesn't mean much to Comedy Central. I know it sounds naive of me to even suppose "artistic integrity" matters to Comedy Central, but it matters to me. The whole reason that I, a Catholic, could laugh at something like the episode "Bloody Mary" was because I knew that with South Park everything was fair game. However, Comedy Central has clearly decided that not everything is fair game. Comedy Central has no problem with offensive material as long as it relates to Christians, Jews, the handicapped, homosexuals, people with AIDS, environmentalists, etc, etc. However, they feel that they must never, never offend the terrorists!
Like I said, it's disheartening.
Sorry for the ramble.
--James
When they didn't reshow the "Trapped in the Closet episode wasn't that fear of losing advertising dollars?
When they didn't reshow the "Bloody Mary", wasn't that FEAR of upsetting Catholics, not tolerance.
I still am not seeing the difference in this case, Comedy Central seems perfectly consistent in their censorship, the blogosphere response on the other hand seems to have gone nuts because its about Muslims.
As an analogy, protesting an abortion clinic is OK, blowing one up is wrong.
Do you not see the difference?
I perceive a subtle difference in the censorship Comedy Central has applied in this case. For both "Trapped in the Closet" and "Bloody Mary" , Comedy Central aired the uncut, uncensored episodes in their scheduled timeslots. The threat of boycott induced Comedy Central to forgo future showings. In this case, the threat of violence convinced Comedy Central to censor the material in its original airing. It's a subtle difference, but in my opinion an important one.
Give me details of this violence that forced Comedy Central's hand.
f you find this disgusting, well then I promise you that we'll continue to disgust you, and not much care about your being disgusted. I'm not really sure why you're interested in reading stuff by people who do such vile, filthy, disgusting things, but I just wanted to warn you that it's not going to get any better.
(Yes, I am practicing attorney with 3 kids and never miss an episode. I laugh every time the kids insult each other in ways completely verboten in the office.)
I suggest reading the Jim's posting up thread aways. Here's some choice quotes:
and
Now, if your point is that the risk of violence was probably low, I'd agree with you. But that doesn't change the fact that it was the threat of violence that caused the self-censorship.
Let's face it, corporations are risk adverse. I hope no one expected Viacom to take any risks for an abstract principle. The final irony is that in this case, they've profitted handsomely from their lack of principle.
To repeat: The problem is not that CC is self-censoring, its their reason for doing so. And as Prof. Volokh reminds us, it's not just CC operating under this fear, it's universities, bookstores, broadcasters and newspapers.
At some point, I'd like to think reasonable people would realize that there's really a problem here. But I'm sure some people will continue to find ways to defend the indefensible.
Who is threatening these universities, bookstores, broadcasters in America with violence? Doesn't that constitute a crime, why aren't those people arrested?
Or is there no actual threat of violence in reality, just a fear?
If Universities, Bookstores, and Broadcasters were afraid of writing movies that featured blue aliens, because if they did the blue aliens might come and disintigrate them, exactly how do we frame the free speech issue?
Indeed, is it *possible* that the real problem are conservatives and neoconservatives who are so interested in the possibilty of pissing off Muslims that they fan the flames, increase the rhetoric, and develop a fake persecution meme when none exists?
I mean, the Danish riots were horrible and unfortunate. As were the Rodney King riots, and pretty much every angst riot that's ever taken place.
But when American muslims, who have done nothing of the violent sort, must sit there and watch large protests in support of the newspaper which decided to offend Muslims for the purpose of offending Muslims (ironically, one of the cartoons makes this very point) and yell at the top of their lungs that nobody should be afraid of offending Muslims even though they're going to kill you.....and then, you have people up in arms every time someone declines to do something that's considered heresy to Muslems, even if they have no other reason to do it in the first place then to make nonMuslims feel superior, you think maybe *that* has a chilling effect on speech?
Now, as mentioned, anyone in America who was going to depict an image of Mohummad (with or without a bomb or big slanty eyes and a sneer), but didn't because they were afraid, is stupid - independant of whether they had a good reason or not to want to show Mohammad in the first place. But given that Comedy Central felt the need to "back down" despite the lack of threats, who gets the blame for the hysteria?
My vote goes to you and Reynolds. I know you disagree, and apologize for not seeing eye to eye on the subject.
It's a political worldview decision - the same reason the network wasn't worried about offending Christians, and the same reason Hollywood would rather produce praised but relatively unprofitable films like Syriana instead of Chuck Norris, etc, kicking terrorist ass.
Did you perhaps miss the burning embassies after the Danish cartoons? Or the riots in the streets? They showed live shots of it in the SP episode. A quick google search showed at least 11 people died in rioting worldwide.
There was clearly violence in the aftermath of the Danish cartoons. That's not some "claim" I'm making, there's been a pretty vivid existence proof of it. I hope you're not denying that. The violence need not take place in this country or directed at Comedy Central for Comedy Central to be blamed for it. Do you remember the heat Newsweek took after riots and deaths from their erroneous reporting of Koran desecration?
What is your point? Lots of people are independently coming to the conclusion that they don't want to risk printing, publishing, broadcasting, or otherwise disseminating depictions of Mohammed for fear of the Muslim reaction. If you want to argue that they're all overreacting, be my guest, but that's not an argument to have with me. I'm simply acknowledging (and bemoaning) reality.
Oh, and Justin, why do you even bother anymore? The failure to blindly support George Bush? Yeah, and everyone here prays to Sean Hannity 5 times a day, laying our rugs to face the News Corp building.
In the process, I included the contents of the cartoons, which is what the speakers at NYU wanted to do, and the magazine that Borders refused to carry wanted to do. If you think that's tantamount to calling someone a "nigger," then I'm curious why you're reading our site, which must be little short of the KKK from your perspective.
On the other hand, if you recognize that criticizing, even harshly, an ideological system -- or for that matter not criticizing it at all, but just having the temerity to depict, even favorably, its founder -- is hardly morally tantamount to calling someone a "nigger," then I'm curious why you're making the argument that you're making.
It seems to me that they're recognizing a real risk, given events throughout the world; I have myself argued that it's a small risk in America, but it seems to me to be hardly a fanciful one. They should be faulted for bowing to that risk, but not, I think, for supposedly making the risk up.
I'm not nearly as much bothered by the attitude of Muslim extremists as I am by Western cowardice. And cowardice is the only word for it.
How do you keep managing to turn this into "conservatives are bad"? Fears of Muslim reactions may or may not be rational, but it's not conservatives who are making threats. Neoconservatives didn't riot across world. Republicans aren't burning down embassies to protest cartoons.
This is not a left/right issue. Your inablity to concede that self-censorship due to a fear of violence is a problem because you would agree with conservatives ought to be a reality check for you. When you allow your political oppponents to cause you to back down on core enlightment values, you've gone around the bend.
You don't have to agree with any of those smelly neocons on the appropiate response to the problem, just that it is a problem.
Legitimate commentary or not, doesn't it seem at least a little bit interesting to you that almost all of the angst over this issue has been emanating from the same right wing blogosphere that supports and promotes the administration's war in Iraq?
Motivations are relevant, which is why I not only don't have a problem with South Park doing a cartoon of Muhammad, I have expressly said that I think Viacom/Comedy Central should not have censored them.
Do you think Disney's Song of the South is well within the bounds of cartoon hyperbole? Whether or not you do, do you consider it unacceptable that you cannot buy it from Borders?
That is what is unacceptable.
I guess I'm super brave for hanging out in America, surrounded by all these protestants!
Or maybe the orchastrated riots in totaltarian dictatorships and the overblown and unfortunate riots in Denmark (a country that has had HUGE racio-religious tension) might have NOTHING to do with the actions of American Muslims.
As for Al Queda....they've honestly got bigger fish to blow up.
That is what is unacceptable.
Charlie: I don't think anybody disagrees with this statement. But the amount of times that has happened in America - or indeed any society with any history of free speech that didn't have a simmering racial riot brewing at the time anyway - is ZERO.
Comedy Cen
tralsorThe Cranky Insomniac
You asked what threat was Comedy Central responding to. I quoted an article that said CC self-censored out of a non-specific fear of violence, and eslablished that there's a history of widespread violence in response to portrayals of the Mighty Mo' in western media. Viacom, a multinational corporation, has exposure to this threat in a variety of ways.
Now you're asking me to defend Comedy Central's (and Borders Books and Boston Phoenix and BYUs) cost/benefit analysis. I'm not prepared to do that (I agree with you that, in America at least, the actual threat is low), all I'm saying is that the threat was non-zero. Are you denying this?
As far as assigning blame goes, I'd assign it to those who would kill over a cartoon.
And again I'll ask you: What's your point? Out interchange started with you asking what the difference was between this and some previous episodes of self-censorship. I said it was the threat of violence, and someone else pointed out the prior restraint. Are you satisfied that this case differs in signicant ways from the other cases?
No, you haven't.
all I'm saying is that the threat was non-zero. Are you denying this?
Yes. The threat is for all practical purposes zero (you could theoretically start a riot for showing a blue sun ona Thursday, but we're talking about the realm of practical outcomes.)
Of course, if Americans keep treating American Muslims like irrational, violent people who can't control their emotions, one would expect American muslims to eventually get militant about their treatment in civil society.
Another reason that people are concerned is that the Muslim cartoons are a watershed event. There have been few problems with insulting most religious groups. Neo-Nazis are allowed to march in the street and have their views heard. But suddenly it is totally wrong to show a picture of a man because some people say believe it's blasphemous. Almost the entire media has bought into the belief that it would be improper to show why people are rioting because it might offend a group of people. Those that haven't have found themselves unemployed. Students who dare have discussions about it find themselves bullied by their university.
The same people who whine about the Republicans creating a theocracy in this country are often those who are the ones making government and society theocratic due to their opposition to "blasphemy". Look at William Donohue -- is he mad at Comedy Central for censoring Mohammad? No, he's happy that Comedy Central is censoring Mohammad and hopes that they'll begin censoring the things he thinks are blasphemous.
The American media has made a distinction between what is okay to make fun of and what isn't. There are lots of conservatives who now have ammunition to fire if they are ever offended -- that gives them hope. Either it's all okay, or none it is.
I don't see where we're playing the "actions of a few of the group are ascribed to the masses". As I've said to llamasex (boy, that's a wierd thing to write...) I don't think that the threat in America is all that great. By and large, American Muslims have adapted well to living in a pluralistic society. I will note that Viacom is not limited to America, however.
So while Comedy Central's decision very well might be an overreaction, given recent history, it's not wholly irrational. Clearly a number of independent organizations have all come to the same conclusion. Are they all irrational?
And even if they all are irrational, at a certain point it becomes self-reinforcing. We don't currently have a problem with American Muslims demanding that their notions of blasphemy be enforced, but if the media voluntarily acquiesce, I believe it will become an expectation. And you could (in the future) see problems if the media were to "blaspheme". Look at the recent immigration protests for an example of what happens when a society fails to assert itself over an extended period of time.
But that's a different argument for a different time.
Your current argument appears to be: (a) yes, Muslim extremists have killed people over the cartoons and other works of criticism, but they haven't done so within the U.S. ... yet; (b) therefore any fear by television networks, universities and bookstores is entirely irrational; and (c) therefore it is not the Muslim extremists who are at fault, but intead the "irrational" television networks, universities and bookstores.
Your argument is completely without merit for at least three reasons.
First, the factual premise is incorrect. Even leaving aside 9/11 (a tough thing to leave aside) on the ground that that mass slaughter was not specifically in response to a cartoon or work of criticism, there is Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar, who drove a rented SUV onto the campus of the University of North Carolina and tried to run down and kill as many people as he could on March 3. And you're going to assert that it is irrational to fear Muslim terrorism in the U.S. in response to depiction of Muhamed they find offensive? Please.
Secondly, even if it hasn't happened in the U.S. previously according to your narrow causation requirement, there is always a first time. Further, given what has happened in other countries in response to the Danish cartoons, it is far from irrational to fear that the same might happen in the U.S.
Finally, your focus on "cartoon caused" terrorism within the boundaries of the U.S. is itself, at best, irrational. Muslims did not burn Danish embasies in Denmark, they burned them where they were vulnerable -- in the Middle East. Americans travel everywhere in the world. They have interests and property all over the world. As a result, Americans are vulnerable everywhere in the world. The real fear, and a reasonable one, is that an extremist Muslim will take offense to a U.S. cartoon, and attack a U.S. consulate in the Middle East, just as Danish embasies were attacked, or kidnap or kill some U.S. diplomat, businessman or tourist, just as others have been kidnapped and killed.
Comedy Central feared, if it published the Muhamed cartoon, not only that one of its employees might be attacked, or that an American within the U.S. might be attacked, but also that an American outside the U.S. might be attacked just as Danes were attacked outside Denmark. That fear was rational. It is also unacceptable.
That is particularly true given the fact that it was other "protestants," namely "our people," who rescued "your people."
"As satirists, we believe that it is our First Amendment right to poke fun at any and all people, groups, organizations and religions and we will continue to defend that right. Our goal is to make people laugh, and perhaps if we're lucky, even make them think in the process."
CC just sacrificed the high ground in any debate of this type in the future. Most people here are missing the point that CC isn't just another corporation—they obviously enjoy cloaking themselves with the mantle of "satirist". They just demonstrated that they're not worthy of that title however.
The SP writers set a trap and CC blundered into it. A completely innocuous sequence involving Mohammed was deleted while the network allowed a vile sequence involving Christ defecating on the U.S. flag to remain in. It's a huge double standard.
What's the lesson from all of this? Threaten violence and CC will cave. The suits might not care, but the SP guys clearly find it tremendously galling and humiliating. Did anyone else notice the numerous references to integrity in the episode? Even the manatees had it in spades.
Or... produce enough "crap", run Jesus shitting during Holy Week, turn off enough viewers to cancel the show ?
It amazes me how overrated this vulgar cartoon is, and how many people won't be watching in seasons to come. Big shit. Ass jokes. Haha. Most people outgrow this.
Now all the big name academics, glued to this cartoon, are arguing about the "message", the battle for free speech. Guess what? These two young men have nothing to say, no message.
Just "haha" Jesus poops... we can't insult Mohammed properly. Once you get past the potty training nonsense, they're not really tacking relevant social issues, but it's no doubt less boring to watch this cartoon and opine than to bury yourself in serious scholarship. Many professors are overgrown children themselves, looking to relive what silly stuff they missed when it was age appropriate.
My take: South Park has run out of shocking new ideas. They'll go the way of Beav and Butthead, and even the Simpsons... Ideas gone, people wonder - what was so great about that show again? (Holy Week.... Jesus shitting... Yeah, I just don't think people are going to support that message.)
They have, however, for South Park. Equal-opportunity offense is hard to pull off, but that show manages it quite well.
But CC is guilty of both hypocrisy and cowardice, in equal measure.
just sayin: are you making a joke? trey parker and matt stone are not flashes in the pan. this is SP's tenth season and they've made a couple movies (and team america is a really really good movie). unlike tom cruise, they are incredibly smart and *sane*. i really can't believe you just typed those words. please tell me that was sarcasm.
The real threat to free speech is when irrational actors like Borders, CC, and NYU FEEL like there's a threat to free speech due to their own completely false stereotypes of Muslems.
Go the way of "The Simpsons"? By that, you mean become the longest running American sitcom?
Second, if we all cared so much about censorship on Comedy Central, where were the impassioned posts about Chappelle?
Mr. Garrisson explained that in islam, there is "no sex" and there is "no jacking off". Yeah, this is crude humor, but maybe a freudian theory that sexual frustration is the cause of terrorism wouldn't be so far off base. why else would these people be sooooo angry.
The Danish embassies and consulates were, pretty much by definition, not attacked in Denmark. They were attacked in vulnerable locations in the Middle East and North Africa. Over what? Over cartoons. Cartoons sponsored, promoted or published by the Danish government? No, cartoons published by a separate, private company. A company where the victims worked, contracted, had some relation? No.
Possibly a reference to Christianity, with the ancient use of the fish as its symbol, or perhaps to judaism, with smoked salmon (lox) being a traditional Yiddish cultural food. Or perhaps even a Danish reference — IIR lox originated in that part of the world?
Given these undisputed facts, fear of violence against Americans by Muslim extremists who are pissed off about a cartoon portrayal of Mohammad is far from irrational. Is such violence against an American more likely to take place outside the U.S. rather than inside the U.S.? Yes, because that is where the vast majority of the potential perpetrators are and where Americans are most vulnerable. Does that mean that such violence somehow is not legitimate concern? Of course not. Does that mean that such violence somehow doesn't count? No, not unless, Justin, it is your world view that Americans outside the U.S. are fair game.
It is far from irrational to fear a group of people who have already committed, and have attempted to commit, violence over precisely the same issue -- cartoons -- that are in issue in the present case.
Is "getting a salmon helmet" a reference to giving oral sex to a woman?
Please read the article about CC's motiviation. You're ignoring the clear meaning of their words. They did not respond to a peaceful demand to not portray Mohammed ; they self-censored out of fear. This is empirically validated by the fact that the same episode was shockingly offensive to Christians, a group CC did not fear.
I agree that (in America) the fear is overblown, but it's not an irrational fear. And don't forget, Viacom is a multinational company. According to wikipedia, as of March 2, at least 139 people have been killed internationally in protests over the Danish Mohammed cartoons. Or is it your contention that violence outside of America borders doesn't count?
I find it amusing how you've managed to blame the threats to our liberty at the feet of those who felt threatened and have completely excused those who have and continue to threaten violence if their notions of blasphemy aren't upheld by the world at large. Why do you refuse to condemn those who've killed and destroyed indiscriminately over cartoons?
Acknowledging that Muslim violence is wrong wouldn't require you to subscribe to National Review or agree with the Iraq War or vote Republican or anything. You can continue to believe that the CC (among others) should not have caved to unstated threats, and that they were cowardly in doing so. But please, assign blame where it's due.
And as a hypothetical, suppose CC showed Mo' and there was no violence in America, but American embassies in the Middle East were burned in response. Who would you fault in that scenario? Now suppose that violence occurred in America? Who would you find fault with then?
"139 people have been killed internationally in protests over the Danish Mohammed"
When you're discussing authoritarian dictators who use religion as a tool to enslave the people and shift blame for the suffering these dictators contribute and fail to alleve, I think you're already admitting that's a different issue than what we have here.
I abhor Muslim violence. I also abhor black violence, white violence, Christian violence, Jewish violence, Communist violence, Buddhist violence, etc.
What you want me to admit, and what I refuse to do, is that there's something inherent about Islam itself that makes people violent - and the violence that you have tried to associate with Islam itself is not tied to different, more political, issues - like anti-Western sentiment in the Middle East and North Africa, and to racial strife in Denmark.
Because neither of these are issues in the United States, showing Mohammad cartoons here in America is as unlikely of starting riots or reactions as Clayton Cramer's absurd fears of retaliation for his insults against homosexuality.
Several people here, including both EV, have referred to the chances of retaliation as "small" "overblown" or "unlikely" - but maintain that it's still possible. It's also possible (indeed, there's significantly more evidence of this actually happening) that being pro-abortion is likely to get you killed. But if a doctor in New York stopped doing abortions, because, without any death threats, he said he was "afraid for his life" - wouldn't we call that irrational? At what point is the chance of some lunatic doing something so unlikely as to make the fear irrational? Surely, we're discussing matters of degree, not kind.
I'm also tired of my position being (intentionally, I assume) mischaracterized and slandered.
"Why do you refuse to condemn those who've killed and destroyed indiscriminately over cartoons? "
I have. I'll do it again. Anyone who commits violence over a cartoon, or more to the point, uses a cartoon as an excuse to commit violence, has no place in civil society. My argument is that this does not describe the Muslem population in the United States, and to the degree it describes the Muslem populations elsewhere, the reasons are not tied directly to Islam but to other sociopolitical problems. The problem with this, btw, isn't "our threat to liberty" - which is certainly by far less than all our calls being eavesdropped on by the NSA, for apparently political purposes as well as security ones. It's the violence itself - the dead people.
And FINALLY, I should once again point out that if a Comedy Central middle manager goes to the UAE and gets executed because of his role in SP - you're talking about very well organized, highly trained people. These people have more important people to kill, and we should be less concerned about what they're going to do to our free speech and more concerned about getting them to stop doing that, either through military policy or otherwise.
And as a hypothetical, suppose CC showed Mo' and there was no violence in America, but American embassies in the Middle East were burned in response. Who would you fault in that scenario?
Uhhh, the same people who were at fault the last time - Islamic political leaders in the middle east and the people who actually did that as a general manner, tho, like any global political conflict, the underlying problems have enough blame to go all around. Certainly there'd be no serious movement in America to blame Comedy Central.
"Now suppose that violence occurred in America? Who would you find fault with then?"
That's not going to happen, and if it did, something fantastical would have to happen - and whoever caused that fantastical event would be to blame. And this is the rub.
"It is far from irrational to fear a group of people who have already committed"
Look, this is the bigotry that is the problem. The "group of people who already comitted" the violence are not "Muslems" but "the political subclass of certain (def not all) Middle Eastern and North African countries" as well as a lesser violent reaction amongst some "Danish North African immigrants" - the fact that you're willing to ascribe the blame to "a group of people" a billion strong - the vast majority of who have done NOTHING - is not only bigoted and foolish, but it's dangerous.
Haven't enough people died in the Global War on Terror by foolish assumptions people have made about other people or cultures?
No, Justin's agenda is more complicated. First, he wants to argue that such an account of Comedy Central's motivations is so inherently absurd that their actual motivations must have been something else, namely a desire to show a justified tolerance towards Muslims (the fact that South Park regularly offends many other groups, including religious people, without being censored by Comedy Central apparently does not give Justin any pause). Second, he wants to argue that anyone criticizing Comedy Central must, therefore, actively want to be unjustifiably intolerant of Muslims, since the desire to be justifiably tolerant of Muslims is the only possible motivation for Comedy Central's actions.
It should be obvious to anyone that Justin's argument is without merit. But Justin manifestly isn't really interested in making meritorious arguments--he simply wants an excuse to accuse certain people of being intolerant of Muslims.
Frankly, I am surprised that after several days of this, people here are still willing to play along with Justin's little game. In fact, I have some doubt myself about whether Justin truly is a "liberal" as he has represented, because it seems equally plausible to me that he is actually attempting to make "liberals" look bad.
As a final thought: insofar as there has been a "Left-Right" element to the discussions of this issue here, it reminds me again of how frequently such analysis tends to lead discussions away from anything substantive. Indeed, as others have implied, the most significant divide is really between those of us who want Comedy Central to let South Park offend everyone more or less equally as they see fit, and those who think Comedy Central should censor South Park for the purpose of avoiding offense to one or more groups.
And whether people in the latter category want to protect just Muslims, or Muslims and Catholics, or all religious people, or all people in general, from offense at the hands of South Park is pretty much irrelevant in my mind. As South Park correctly noted, once avoiding offense is a valid reason to censor South Park, there is no logical stopping point before their entire show must be censored, because that is the very nature of the show. And as South Park also correctly noted, that is undoubtedly the goal of some people--namely those who think South Park is representative of the elements of American popular culture that they would like to see extinguished.
Finally, I should note that I personally do not put much weight on the fact that some of the people who would like to see South Park censored by Comedy Central (and perhaps ultimately extinguished) might advocate violence as a way of coercing Comedy Central, and others would seek only to put "economic" pressure on Comedy Central (eg, through threats of boycotts, or Cruise's purported threat to fail to promote MI3). Of course, obviously that difference in means would have a great deal of legal relevance in various contexts. But simply choosing legal means of exerting pressure on Comedy Central does not in my mind excuse the general sentiment that we should be seeking to deal with purportedly "offensive" speech by attempting to extinguish its presence entirely.
Rather, to paraphrase the Supreme Court's recent decision in FAIR, as originally suggested by Justice Breyer, the appropriate response to speech we don't like is generally more speech. And although I don't think that principle should be legally enforced in this case, I think people who care about that principle should still stand up for it even when only legal means are being used to attempt to extinguish, rather than respond to, purportedly "offensive" speech.
And to bring this thought full circle--I think it only plays into the hands of the pro-censorship folks on both the "Left" and the "Right" to think of this issue in Left-Right terms.
Consider the post above my own "last word" on the subject.
"manifestly"
"agenda"
"anyone criticizing Comedy Central"
"he simply wants an excuse to accuse certain people of being intolerant of Muslims"
Uhhhh?
Before I go, for the last time, please stop making stuff up about me or my arguments. Thank you.
2. This has not happened in the United States yet (and oddly enough European newspapers have been braver than us here), because our media mostly hasn't had the balls to do it. Even small operations such as student newspapers that decided to try this have sacked people who decided to publish a couple cartoons.
That's all there is to it. If you're tossing in neoconservatives, American hypocrisy, or even American Muslims, you're making this way more complicated than it needs to be in an attempt to rip something else.
While you have undoubtedly spent a lot of time writing and responding (as have I), but you really haven't made yourself clear. I wouldn't go so far as Medis and infer bad faith on your part, but you might want to consider that you're not communicating effectively. In fact, you're communicating so poorly that Medis' inference of bad faith on your part has merit. We've spent a lot of electrons going back and forth with each other and I really have very little clue what you're arguing for or against, because it's not clear from what you've written.
Under the theory that actions are a form of speech, organizing a boycott is more speech designed to counter speech that someone doesn't like. A group using its economic clout as a protest against speech they find offensive strikes me as not only a legal response, but a moral response as well. Likewise, people who support the controversial speech can support it (the "Buy Denmark" campaign).
While it would be nicer if we were a society full of Voltaires, that's an unreasonable expectation.
Synapsis.
The Danish cartoons were meant to be offensive, and were. Still, the reaction to them was horrendous and tragic. Although nobody reported as such, the reaction was simply a lit powder keg, for two different reasons. In Denmark, the Danish immigrant class (from almost exclusively North Africa) already felt like second class citizens, due to both economic strife and because the ruling conservative political party often attacks them for political purposes. In Iran, Syria, Lebanon, et. al., political leaders who have also labeled themselves religious leaders have used it as an excuse to inflame antiWestern sentiment, and turned the Danish cartoons into a symbol of Western "corruption," "economic interference," etc - the symbolic boogeyman.
The problem started next with the media. The media, as usually, reported the Danish riots in only a superficial and sensationalist way. Thus, nobody really was informed of the root underlying causes (the way, say, a high school student learns that the Black Hand's assassination was not the "real" cause of World War I, for example). This meant people were given the real, but misinformed idea, that public depictions of Mohammad would be met with violence, particularly in North Africa and Denmark. This is true even though many, many people have since depicted Mohammad, and there has been no recurring violence on the issue.
To make matters worse, the political right in this country is floundering. They're deeply in need of rallying isssues. Their economic agenda is stalled, their political leaders are unpopular, the war they put their hopes and beliefs in is failing, and they're looking at a major loss in the polls in November (though that probably won't happen, due to Democratic incompetence). In 2004, political leaders tried to use anti-Gay sentiment to keep supporters in the fold - but this is now an issue which tears the right asunder (surely an issue that will ultimately find the political rubble), and anyway, the lack of action post-2004 make the true believers skeptical.
As such, the new target are Muslems. This started by the GOP Congress, along with Democrats who were too incompetent to latch on to anything else, making a big hay about the ports, even though the UAE are our allies. The meme started to grow - the fight we were having was not against "Al Queda," nor against "political Wahabbasm" but against Islam itself, and giving the ports over to a country that happened to be Muslem was the equivalent of dealing with the enemy.
(Incidentally, this has been a mime that has consistently undermined the war on terror. It created the rediculous mindset that our new war against Osama was the same as our old war against Saddam, and the resulting war against Saddam not only deprived us of a ton of resources, but took away from us a natural deflector of our enemy's attention, as well as opened up for our real enemies the possibility of controlling Iraq's very valuable oil supply - far more valuable than the heroin supply that was previously funding their efforts. Furthermore, our consistent inability to understand the history of Muslem conflict made the Iraq insurgency a surprise to the political leaders, and their current inability to understand motivating factors has led to a political strategy that has undermined our efforts and endangered our troops.)
As such, a meme, pushed by the right (notice how no other blogs besides righwinged blogs are discussing the issue at all, but almost every right winged blog has something to say - though I think Dales' post on RedState is pretty reasonable - he's a reasonable guy) was that Muslems are PERSECUTING us and taking away our RIGHTS. This was brilliant, to the degree it was intentional - it rebranded the war as not just one for security (where the lack of attacks has made us complacent, for better or worse), but as one for ideology. It also was vaguely more plausible sounding than "they hate us for our freedom!"
But it was also dangerous. First of all, it made people scared of Muslems - not just the ones who actually want to kill us, but all Muslems. Second of all, it ironically DID take away our rights. By hyping the threat in Iraq, and the connection to Al Queda, and the WMDs', Bush ironically made Iraq a threat (at least to American interests and soldiers, gave Al Queda a major foothold in Iraq, and increased the value of having WMDs to deter future invasions). Here, the hyping of our threat to "free speech" has made people actually afraid of free speech - which can be evidenced by the irrational *but genuine* fear which caused, amongst others, CC not to show the harmless Mohammad cartoon. And as the previous 8 zillion posts show, such a fear not only has a chilling effect (though perhaps an overstated one) on speech, it also has a dangerous backlash people. Since the fear is based on a distorted (and bigoted) view of Muslims generally, it appears "confirmed" in a strange, circular way - provoking and supporting more fear and bigotry.
Finally, I'm frustrated by both the tone and the seeming purpose of the criticism which pushes forth the cycle. When people like the ACLU make such allegations, it's one thing. But when it comes from people who normally are okay with private organizations deciding to not offend others based on (here, oddly nonexistant) the threat of (generally legal) reaction - and when it is couched in terms that seem overtly playing to anti-Muslim sentiments and the idea that we should speak just to stick it to them for the previous misdeeds of just a portion of them (the whole group blame meme) - it is likely to cause overreaction, and unneccesary antagonism, on both sides.
It's also unseemly - it's one thing to support free speech that is patently offensive, it's another thing to do so in a way that seems disproportionately passionate, and blur the line between the right to speak and the message itself.
That's my synapsis - nothing I said here can't be found in any of my previous posts, and I am not going to clarify further, because this has gone on long enough.
Your vitriolic partisanship is getting in the way of the facts. The right wing does not own a monopoly on being in favor of free speech. In fact all three posts on teh topic from the most popular left wing site show that you are actually the dissident (who also seems to subsitute ad-hominems for actual debate) with regards to the south park episode:
http://www.dailykos.com/tag/South%20Park
just scroll down a little
I've been reading your comments carefully, and I stand by my characterization. I actually wouldn't go so far as to say you are arguing in "bad faith", because I think you clearly announced your thesis in the beginning. And again, I think your arguments are designed to support the thesis that those criticizing Comedy Central actually want to be intolerant of Muslims.
SG,
I'm actually not sure what you mean by saying actions are a form of speech--obviously, some actions are speech, and some are not, and some are a mix. Insofar as an act is not designed to communicate an idea, but rather is also designed to provide an incentive, or impose some sort of coercion, I don't think one can say that it is just a speech act.
In general, though, I don't think the semantics are important. My basic point is that one can respond to speech one finds offensive in a lot of different ways. One category of responses would include things like criticizing the purportedly offensive speech and providing alternative speech on the same topic. Generally, one might call these "additive" responses, in that one seeks to address the alleged problem by adding more speech to the cultural mix.
A different category of responses would include things like trying to extinguish the purportedly offensive speech, or at least trying to limit its audience by influencing (through persuasion, incentives, coercion, etc.) those who control mass media outlets to deny access to the relevant speakers. Generally, one might call these "subtractive" responses, in that one seeks to address the alleged problem by subtracting the purportedly offensive speech from the cultural mix.
I'm not suggesting one can categorically rule out justifying the latter sort of response, but I am generally inclined to disfavor such a response absent truly extraordinary circumstances. There are lots of interacting reasons why I think that, but the basic idea is that I think a society which generally tries to add more speech, rather than trying to subtract away speech, will end up being a better society.
In contrast, some people obviously believe that we should be trying to extinguish the presence of certain sorts of current elements of popular culture. They clearly believe that if they could succeed in subtracting such speech from our cultural mix, they could create a better society. And for some of those people, South Park represents the kind of thing they want to see extinguished in the name of creating a better society.
So, I think that is a legitimate contrast in views. And again, I think that represents a divide that does not map neatly onto the "Left/Right" division, because there are those on both the Left and the Right who believe in making a better society through cultural subtraction, and vice-versa.
"Thus, nobody really was informed of the root underlying causes..."
Justin, I hate to pile on - but I took it as a given that you realize these cartoons were published in Denmark months before any riots or violence occurred as some sort of retaliation to the cartoons. That violence when it did occur, occurred thousands of miles away from Denmark.
(I'm sorry to be patronizing, but from reading the first two paragraphs of the post, it honestly sounds like you don't know - and you don't, and it seems like it, it's a waste of time to read commentary on anything else in the post with regard to that.)
At this point I stopped reading your post. If you want to make it clear to me you know (you're under no obligation to, but) I'll continue arguing over this thing. If not, this is a waste of time. You're looking for some sort "gotcha" or "root causes" where there aren't any. It's like the guy in the Big Lebowski who tried to tie everything back to Vietnam. This isn't America's fault. This isn't your fault or my fault. There's not a lot more to it.
Is that anywhere near Copenhagen?
I once visited Mockba. If only someone would invent an English word for that city so people would know where I'm talking about!
The Bloody Mary episode - from http://www.defamer.com/hollywood/south-park/bloody-mary-
episode-ensures-south-park-guys-a-bungalow-in-hell
-145774.php - "Its plot involves a statue of the Virgin Mary, which appears to be miraculously bleeding from its rectum. Pope Benedict XVI is called in to investigate, and upon discovering the statue is instead hemorrhaging from its vagina, says, ahem, "A chick bleeding out her vagina is no miracle. Chicks bleed out their vaginas all the time.""
A little common sense has to be used here. There is a world of difference between a show that actually and vilely defames Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and a show that merely shows an image of Mohammed, and not even in a disrespectful manner, if reports are correct. They are not comparable.
A decision to buy or not buy a product because of the some speech of the producer is clearly a communicative act. It says "I don't like what you've said" and "please stop saying it".
Although, I agree with you that this is usually not the optimal response from a societal standpoint. As I said, I'd prefer a society of Voltaires, but I can't fault someone for not being Voltaire. How many truly are?
But if you just watched your Lord and Savior being defecated on, what's would you consider an appropriate "additive" response to that?
To be clear, I'm largely in agreement with you. Our society is enriched by having as largest possible selection in the marketplace of ideas. Fewer sacred cows would be nice too. And it takes a special kind of genius to turn this into left/right issue when it clearly seems to be to be a pre-enlightment/post-enlightment issue.
I disagree. The two cases are very comparable. In both cases a religious figure was depicted in a way that (some) adherents of the religion found troubling. "disrespectful" and "defaming" are clearly value judgements and different religions have different values.
I would rather Comedy Central show both episodes unedited. But I draw a distinction between censoring for economic self-interest and censoring for fear of violence.
With all due respect, you are incorrect regarding the show on Mary. There are images of Mohammed in the Muslim world, so it is true that not all Muslims agree that merely showing an image of Mohammed is disrespectful. The Muslims, themselves, have much more respect for Mary than the South Park show called "Bloody Mary." Objectively, South Park's sin in the "Bloody Mary" show is greater, than in the Mohammed show. One other difference is that Christians who honor Mary probably will not riot because of the show. That generally is not the way to change hearts. If I was the author of the "Bloody Mary" show, I would not want to stand before her Son at the last judgment, unless I had truly repented of my sin.
V.L.
I'm not insensitive to your point. I'm objecting to your claim that there's a world of difference between the two. I agree that the two cases differ in degree, but not of category. I can (and did) draw a number of parallels between the two.
I suggest actually watching the episode in question. "Family Guy" is criticized because none of its jokes really make sense. In the SP episode it's revealed that this is because the "Family Guy" writers are actually manatees who are "writing" each episode by randomly moving colored balls with words written on them from one end of the pool to another.
The difference between greed and cowardice?
Incidentally, in response to Justin, which one of the original Danish cartoons was patently offensive? There is a vast gulf between reasonable criticism, in which category I would place those cartoons, and vulgarity whose sole intention is to offend.
Well, yeah. Viacom's a business. If they're not satisfying their customers, they should change what they're doing.
They're under no obligation to broadcast something that doesn't have a sizeable enough audience, or that would alienate their audience. But when they decline to broadcast something that people want to see (what were the ratings for Cartoon Wars, pt2?) for fear of a violent reprisal, I see that as categorically different.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/images/islm_cartoon_8.jpg
(ignore the human events "editorial comment" if you will - this is just the first one i found)
Yet some of the other cartoons were patently offensive:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/images/islm_cartoon_1.jpg
Which features the stereotypical bushy eyebrow and sneer, along with the big nose that was so familiar in German newspapers many years ago.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/images/islm_cartoon_7.jpg
This one features much of the same racial bigotry, and while the point is arguably political, it's a fairly offensive one - that Islam as a whole is a religion of violence and hate. You might agree with that statement, but that doesn't make it not offensive.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/images/islm_cartoon_6.jpg
This one is more political, and so the offensiveness of it could be viewed in a fair light. However, I could see the argument that by continuing to cultivate the myth of virgins, it's offensive outside of its political content.
On the other hand, these are all very interesting ones which make provocative points, and where the drawing of Mohammad is justified to make the point:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/images/islm_cartoon_3.jpg
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/images/islm_cartoon_9.jpg
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/images/islm_cartoon_11.jpg
(which incidentally makes the same point as the one I referred to originally)
and this one I don't understand at all:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/images/islm_cartoon_5.gif
This one I just find really cute and subtle:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/images/islm_cartoon_2.jpg
Okay, that's all.
Hear, hear, hypocrisy. I didn't think I was the only one to see this huge assumption on behalf of Justin, not to mention his ignoring intentional self-ghetoization of Danish Moslems and the Saudi/Wahabbi $$ used to fund "education" there as contributing factors in Islamic intollerance.
I came to the conclusion on a previous thread that Justin is so affected by his bias and preconceived notiong about "the right" and what it stands for that he is practically incapable of judging a matter on its merits without retreating to political posturing.
Haven't we all. Fortunately, now that "salmon helmet" has been used in the proper context during this blog discussion, it will presumably show up in future Google searches, and the millions of desperate Googlers seeking information on salmon helmetry shall no longer search in vain.
Here's what I do have a problem with. As this particular episode of South Park shows, it is possible and safe to offend Christians and patriotic people in US - which is as it should be. But it is not possible to offend Muslims. And how do you call a place where there is a single religion that can not be offended?
Caliphat has not been officially proclaimed, but it has been established 4/12/2006 (or what is this equivalent to in Muslim calendar?)
The Danish editors said quite explicitly what the purpose of the cartoons were. They were not done commissioned simply "to offend", they were done to test what the limits of free expression were in contemporary Danish society. It seems they got their results, no?
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Even by your standards, you agree that there's no offensive component to that particular depiction. I read you as saying that, even thought there was nothing offensive, the drawing shouldn't have been made (describing an action as "bizarre" is hardly an affirmation). Why shouldn't it have been drawn? Or am I misreading you?
In answer to your question: "Why draw Mohammed, knowing it is offensive, without any speech content?" Answer: Because you can. Or in this case, because you can't.
Haven't you agreed that Comedy Central should have shown Mohammed "just standing there"? How is this different?
As an aside, you say: "A decision to buy or not buy a product because of the some speech of the producer is clearly a communicative act. It says 'I don't like what you've said' and 'please stop saying it'."
I don't think that is clear at all. First, one might have no intention at all of communicating anything to the producer or anyone else. One might simply desire to disassociate oneself from the producer, or to punish the producer, or to provide the producer with an incentive to change his behavior. Of course, in the last case, one would also have to communicate to the producer what behavior one found objectionable, and notably a simple decision not to buy the product does not really communicate that--one also has to add an explanation of why one did not buy the product.
That said, I think that in some circumstances such an act could also be a symbolic gesture intended to communicate an idea to the producer or some third party (but not necessarily so). But even then, it could be a mixed act--it could both be offered as a symbolic gesture, but also be designed to serve one or more noncommunicative purposes.
In general, all acts "say" something about the state of mind of the actor, in that one can sometimes deduce beliefs and motivations from the act in combination with various factual circumstances. But that use of the word "say" is actually a metaphor, and should not be confused with the literal sense of someone intending to communicate something through an act.
Anyway, you also say: "I'd prefer a society of Voltaires, but I can't fault someone for not being Voltaire. How many truly are?"
Assuming you mean by "a Voltaire" someone who lives up to some ideal of tolerance for offensive speech, I'm not sure why you think we cannot fault people to the extent that they fail to live up to that ideal. That is the nature of ideals: they define standards, the departure from which we consider worthy of criticism. And the fact that we all depart from various ideals under various circumstances does not mean that we are all immune to criticism for such failings--rather, it instead means that we are all subject to criticism at various time.
That said, I don't tend to think of these matters in terms of ideals (I'm more a balancing of principles and values sort of person--in other words, a "golden mean" sort). And as I said, I am not ruling out entirely a "subtractive" response in certain extraordinary circumstances.
Again, though, it seems to me that there are clear differences of opinion in our society about to what degree we should be attempting to "subtract" offensive speech. And I don't see why I should not criticize those who in my view resort too quickly and without adequate justification to such means of dealing with purportedly offensive speech. Indeed, that seems like a perfectly reasonable topic for rational discourse.
Finally, you say: "But if you just watched your Lord and Savior being defecated on, what's would you consider an appropriate 'additive' response to that?"
That is a tough question for me to answer, because there is not a lot I consider "sacred" in that sense. To get my blood boiling, I think you would have to make it personal--eg, maybe something like Comedy Central broadcasting a cartoon image of my wife (who is not a public figure) being graphically demeaned in some way. In such a case, I would probably get angry, and I might well respond by demanding the speech in question be extinguished.
But I don't think it is too hard to explain why that counts as an "extraordinary" case. And again, I don't see this as an all-or-nothing proposition. Rather, I see it as an issue of where we should strike the appropriate balance, and I do feel free to criticize those who in my view too often err on the side of subtracting speech.
In other words, Muslems (or at least many of them) don't like it when other people draw pictures of Mohammad. Although we may find this concept foreign, and we certainly should not make their preferences mandatory, it seems like all else being equal, we respect them. If we go around drawing Mohammad just BECAUSE "other Muslems don't like it" (and not as anything that extends from that...i.e., I'm okay with Trey and Matt), it just seems obnoxious.
Or to put it another way. Let's say your neighbor hates the color Green. You don't know why, but he does. Now if you liked the color Green, and so thus painted your house Green, then well, too bad for him. His preferences don't get to usurp yours. But if you had absolutely no preference between blue and green, and you knew your neighbor hated green, so you painted your house green...you'd be a bit of a jerk.
Does that help? I hope?