South Park . OTT?

[Kebab]

(and are you sure that the French publications didn't contribute to the deaths occuring during violence in the Middle Eastern countries).

Am pretty sure there was violence and terrorism related death in the middle east a long time before the french papers depicted mohammed.

As JP said it is muslims who are not allowed to draw or paint a human form, let alone the prophet.

I have seen pictures of mohammed before, muslim friends of mine saw pictures of mohammed and they didnt get offended. SO not showing mohammed in a cartoon just because some fundamentalist are scaring YOU with threats is not a valid argument. THey are fundamentalist they will kill someone, even if you dont show mohammed, they are just fishing for excuses to turn killing into a sacred act that will buy their way into paradise or so they think.

The main reason why so many muslim were pissed with the Danish paper was because Mohammed was portayed as a terrorist and obviously it is a big symbol. The muslim were pissed off because the paper was saying that all muslims were terrorist, that their god was a terrorist.

THe whole issue about the muslim community being pissed off because their prophet was protrayed was either bad PR from their side or a dramatic spin off from the media (either voluntary or due to a lack of understanding).

[Whiternoise]

I don't think south park should be ridiculed for sharing their views on TV, if anyone here reads Private Eye, they ripped into the protest about the cartoonists. Moreover, they get away with being rude to just about every politician, actor (in fact just about everyone famous) and noone cares..so why should TV be any different to magazines.

[vincent]

South Park has always been the centre of attention cos it takes the Michael out of whats happened- from the Michael Jacko trials to Racism.......

cant believe the FBI hasnt stopped them yet lol....

But like any other thing such as comedians-they do the exact same

[IBM]

So I'm the only one who thinks that saying or doing something just because you can, even though there are severe consequences (although perhaps not directly to yourself), is the right thing to do?

Am I also the only person who thinks that jpreston's assertion that my viewpoint is comparable to 'women getting raped because they wear short skirts' simply idiotic?

And while I'm on the topic of jpreston, if you think that free speech is a duty, then why don't you get yourself off down to your local mosque and show them a few of your own sketches of Muhammed?

Lastly, surely burying your head in the sand is refusing to look at the bigger picture, focusing your attention on a single concept of 'must use free speech, must use free speech' like some zombie mantra. You've got free speech. Seriously, it's not going away. It doesn't mean you have to use it, when the only reason to do so is to piss people off....that's not liberty, that's juevinile.

[Kebab]

And while I'm on the topic of jpreston, if you think that free speech is a duty, then why don't you get yourself off down to your local mosque and show them a few of your own sketches of Muhammed?

Now that would be totally incensitive. Just waving a picture of mohammed in front of a mosque is a dumb idea. Although you should try and see what reaction you get. Depending on what you drew you might be surprised.

Not doing something because of the consequences does not apply to this particular situation. Your analogy of the bees nest is appropriate for this situation. Because there is no alternative, you shake a bees nest the bees willd efend themselves by stinging you.

WHile here showing a picture of mohammed should not have to result in death or bombs. The people you are affraid of are terrorist and should not be dictating what is and what isnt appropriate to show on television or in a newspaper.




Why do i have the feeling we are turning in circle here.....

[JPreston]

So I'm the only one...

Apparently, yes. But don't let that bother you, maybe everyone else really is wrong

Am I also the only person who thinks that jpreston's assertion that my viewpoint is comparable to 'women getting raped because they wear short skirts' simply idiotic?

Please articulate the difference instead of trying to sound superior because you know, you're not . In both instances, the suggestion is that one should refrain from something that is perfectly acceptable to most of the population (and offensive to a small minority) in case it triggers a crime, and thus the act itself is held by you to be the cause of that crime even though the escalation is far beyond what a normal person would consider reasonable. The cartoonist (woman) is responsible for the riots (rape) because the cartoon (skirt) was the trigger. The rioters (rapist) cannot possibly be blamed because their actions are totally understandable in the face of such outrageous provocation. WTF ?!?

And while I'm on the topic of jpreston, if you think that free speech is a duty, then why don't you get yourself off down to your local mosque and show them a few of your own sketches of Muhammed?

You do know that in reality they would not actually take any notice of me? Do you think that I would be stoned to death or something? That's actually rather a patronising attitude to have; to assume that all muslims are fundamentalists and to think that because I personally don't invest all my time in debating religion with people of faith that I am afraid of being killed by a mob...and to think that ANY of this proves your point is totally muddled thinking.

Lastly, surely burying your head in the sand is refusing to look at the bigger picture...

Well, in the episode (that I presume you still haven't seen) heads buried in sand refers to the refusal to condemn terrorism and violence but instead to accept those as the natural consequence of the cartoon. Not your idea of 'looking at the bigger picture' by which you actually mean 'completely ignoring the actual problem and wringing your hands over an irrelevance'. And finally ****SPOILER ALERT**** after the cartoon is aired al-Zawahiri's promised retaliation is swift - but it's not a terrorist act, instead he airs his own cartoon depicting americans and jesus crapping over one another and the US flag. After which the credits immediately roll, leaving you to form your own reaction...mine was 'so what?' (which I presume is the intended one) but will you start rioting now?*


*I would leave that rhetorical but I think maybe I need to spell it out for you. No, you will not riot or blow anyone up because that it is not an appropriate reaction. In fact thinking about it, you aren't actually all that offended. WWJD? Indeed. Now, if only everyone could 'turn the other cheek' and be equally level headed wouldn't there be much less drama in the world? Do you see what the episode is getting at?

[IBM]

JPreston .... my point with regards to short skirts = rape is simple. I'm not talking about the importance of free speech. It's really very simple. So for the second time in two posts, something is to be spelled out.

If more depictions of Muhammed are shown, violence will occur. Regardless of situation, state, mentallity, the rights, wrongs or otherwise. I don't give two hoots about the 'duty' of free speech...we obviously have other opinionated individuals for that . I want to know if you, or anyone else, should do something just because they can, knowing the consequences. Something that doesn't have to be done. Could you do it, in all good conscious, knowing that if people die, you will be in part responsible....and I don't care if it's because their fundamentalist nutters and have something wrong with them, their reaction was stimulated by your action.

JPreston ... where are you based? As a person with some involvement within the muslim culture in the UK, especially the youth culture, I can state with some authority that there is a large amount of resentment as to what is seen as 'liberties' being taking with the muslim religion, and I'd have to say that you'd be lucky to come away with your face intact should you have the courage of your convictions and fulfill your 'duty'....you're not american are you?

And you're right, I haven't seen the episode, as it's not pertinent to the point I'm making. But just in case you missed it the first time, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about direct reaction to an unnesessary action.

[iranu]

I very much doubt that the middle east gets South Park broadcast to them. As for comparing it with those cartoons I think that that is folly. Noone in the middle east knew about the cartoons until some fundamentalist Danish Muslims went to Egypt with not only the published cartoons but some more that werwn't and decided to stir it up. No-one in the western countries where the cartoons were published was killed so I don't see the point.

If Muslims in the middle east want to work themselves up into such a frenzy over something happening in another country that does not concern them and then kill each other as a concequence then it's a matter for them, not us and free speech.

As for britain - it's about time that British Muslims woke up to the fact that they live in a free society. A society that has the ability and the right to take the piss out of everything. Muslims are far too touchy about their religion, they need to grow up get over it. Christianity has been mocked so much and you don't see them wandering the streets with placards calling for death to people. British Muslims need to gain a sense of proportion and thank their lucky stars that they live in a free, democratic and tolerant society. Religion in this country is a personal thing so who cares if I display pictures of Mohammed it's my right to do so, if you get upset either write to your MP or just ignore it.

[Waka]

and I'd have to say that you'd be lucky to come away with your face intact

So we shouldn't be allowed to practice our inalienable right because of the threat of violence?

That's not a society I want to live in.

Hopefully you're putting a similar amount of effort into preaching tolerence with your Muslim friends as you are at threatening members of this board [I'm sure you didn't mean it directly, but it *does* read as a veiled threat]

W.

[IBM]

*sighs*

Iranu, please don't hijack my thread to start some of the rants you had going in Question Time. Please re-read the post above yours and then address the points made.

Waka ... no threat intended, nor made and I resent the implication. I'm a pacifist by nature, and do indeed tell my friends and associates that violence is not a means to an end. I'm simply giving an indication of the aggression which exists amongst a section of society. I really don't want to keep repeating myself, but my point isn't free speech, nor is it directly about censorship through fear. Take the example of an American journalist afraid to publish something about the American government which was important for people to know, because they were afraid of reprisals. A valid defence of free speech should ensue. However, publishing pictures of muhammed because it's controversial and sure to make a lot of people very angry, increasing world tension when it doesn't need increasing, and generally stirring the pot, doesn't strike me a sensible use of free speech, and not really defensible when it gets shot down. They're doing it just because it's controversial and because they can, and to hell with the consequences.

Surely somebody sees that as being wrong?

I ask again. Would you do it? Knowing that if you did something, for nothing more than kicks and attention, that there would be severe consequences (I'll avoid 'deaths' since it's only a possibility, not a certainty), would you do it?

[Slick]

'Either it's all okay, or none of it is'

I have to say I agree with that. I find it offensive when Christianity is continually mocked, and Jesus being placed in cartoons and shows shown in lights such as that Jerry Springer show and Corpus Christi. But when I raise protests over these things, people say to stop being so sensitive and to have a laugh.

But surely if that's ok for Christianity the same can be said about Islam? However the same guardian reading lefties who act discusted at muhammed being shown on a cartoon are the ones who are ok with Jesus being mocked. Christianity also gets it a lot worse, in south park they just wanted to show a picture of muhammed while he bought a cup of tea, if you watch the south park episodes with Jesus they're not even in the same league. I think you should respect all religions but you can't have one rule for one and another rule for another.

[JPreston]

JPreston .... my point with regards to short skirts = rape is simple...

It's obviously not simple because you still don't go on to explain yourself, but rather try to adopt some kind of supercilious attitude. The skirt didn't have to be worn any more than the cartoons had to be published, so she is partly responsible by your crazy reasoning. 'Unnecessary action' describes both the cartoons and the short skirt (why not wear a longer one? A jilbab? A burkha?) and 'direct reaction' descripes both terrorism and rape. Why do you profess to understand one and not the other?

JPreston ... where are you based? As a person with some involvement within the muslim culture in the UK, especially the youth culture, I can state with some authority that there is a large amount of resentment as to what is seen as 'liberties' being taking with the muslim religion, and I'd have to say that you'd be lucky to come away with your face intact should you have the courage of your convictions and fulfill your 'duty'....you're not american are you?

since you ask, I am from Luton. Being an immigrant myself and growing up in the specific area I did I would say that 90% of my friends were muslim (I am atheist). In fact, my best friend was even later briefly remanded under the terrorism act (mistaken identity don't you know. But he still lost his job. TBH we are more concerned today about civil liberties than religious issues) So as well as finding your threat of me being 'lucky to come away with my face intact' mildly offensive - you clearly have a very low opinion of the people you claim to understand and champion - I know it to be incorrect. Now kindly explain WTF that has to do anything being discussed?

And you're right, I haven't seen the episode, as it's not pertinent to the point I'm making. But just in case you missed it the first time, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about direct reaction to an unnesessary action.

OK....so you haven't even seen* the episode that 'your' whole thread is about and so do not have the first clue about what you are typing about. How on earth do you imagine you can say whether it's O.T.T. or not? Then you accuse iranu of 'hijacking your thread' ...perhaps he was only introducing a subject that you would have the first clue about?

There is a big difference between person A going out of their way to be offensive, and person B going out of their way to be offended. You would do well to remember this distinction (as well as some manners) rather than ranting about being offended by a cartoon you haven't even seen and expecting people to agree with you.



* I have, now.

[smtkr]

ibm, I don't see how to make this any more simple to you. JPreston has made very tenable points. The bottom line is that we shouldn't live our lives the way the bad guys want. If we do, they win.

[IBM]

ibm, I don't see how to make this any more simple to you. JPreston has made very tenable points. The bottom line is that we shouldn't live our lives the way the bad guys want. If we do, they win.

No, you're right, J has made some very tenable point....off topic, but very tenable...thanks for your input, simple or otherwise

[IBM]

Okay, I know this isn't going to be the final word, nor would I want it to be, but I don't see this going anywhere else, so I'll just refrain from commenting any more.

I was of the opinion that doing something for entertainment/controversial value just because you can, despite it 'causing problems, was irresponsible. My point wasn't about freedom of speech, rather chosing to use such freedom of speech in a sensible manner. Would it be a point to fear by not broadcasting such images? Not really, more a point to consideration and empathy.

We're all entitled to our opinions of course, and I truly respect that. I also know that freedom of speech is important. To refer back to an earlier point, I just think that poking a wasps next just because you can, not because you have any good reason to, is wrong.

[Slick]

I don't see where the whole "freedom of speech" thing comes from anyway. We don't have freedom of speech in the UK, nor should we. There are numerous laws such as inciting racism, homophobic and religious hatred, placing restrictions on what I can say. If we lived in a civilised society we would not need such laws but we do, going out of your way to offend people is wrong and should be stopped.

My previous point was that this should apply to all religions, not just ones where some of its followers will threaten to kill people. We should not mock people's religions out of respect, not out of fear for being killed.