South Park . OTT?

[IBM]

Just saw this on the BBC..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4909820.stm

Now I've read all there is to say on the whole Muhammed pictures thing, but just going out of your way to offend people who are obviously very touchy and are sure to react violently, in addition to the further damage done to American reputation (just when you thought it couldn't get any lower), makes me think that Matt & Trey are nothing more than attention seeking media whores. I'm sure most people already know this, and as they say 'Either it's all okay, or none of it is', but surely when people are going to die because of it, along with other serious repurcussions, then they should perhaps find another way of making their point....

[Clunk]

im not religious in the slightest, but it seems a bit silly to change the image from muhammed to jesus. surely that will just offend the high volume of bible bashers in america. seems to me like one rule for one and one for the other.

[SilentDeath]

who cares if its funny

but just going out of your way to offend people who are obviously very touchy and are sure to react violently,

would you react violently?


IMO the more offensive stuff the better as it will help people from all cultures get used to it, and noone will care anymore... and if they do react violently then that shows what kind of people they are..

im not religious in the slightest, but it seems a bit silly to change the image from muhammed to jesus. surely that will just offend the high volume of bible bashers in america. seems to me like one rule for one and one for the other.

They are just protecting themselves. If one of there shows offends americans the worst that will happen is they will get sued a few times... it not different rules for different people .. you could find most media companys have general policys not to offend anyone that might take violent action against them....

[TheAnimus]

Far far from it.

Freedom of speach is important.

Showing a pictures of something i wouldn't like would anger me, but I shouldn't re-act violently.

For instance, showing a picture of my penis on the net without my permission would caus great embrasesment if say emailed to my mother. Should i re-act violently no. Should the reason people don't post it, be the fact i might violently re-act. No, it should be law, thats it.

Not threat of violence. Peoples rights. If you watch the episode, and the ending, you see the message.

[Waka]

Nobody is spared the South Park treatment (nor should they be) - which is why Isaac Hayes has gone *way* down in my estimation since he whined about the treatment Scientologists got in a recent episode (so they killed him off....ha!).

Scientology is a dangerous cult that is banned in Germany and should be everywhere...Tom Cruise, you're top of my hit list now ;-)

W.

[Mike Fishcake]

The creators of South Park have actually made more valid and thoughtful social commentaries than any other writers on TV in the past 10 years. They just hide it behind fart jokes

[FarmerJon]

now that's not true....it's only partly fart jokes....there's also jokes about penises & vaginas too!

[Kebab]

I would recommend to anyone to watch the two episodes mentioning prophet mohammed. They make the best case for freedom of speech I have seen on TV.

I dont think they hide behind fart jokes. They actually make their argument even more obvious by making fart or penile jokes. They argue using the absurd to make their point harder to miss.

Only some people are too busy being offended by these jokes and focus on the images rather than the dialogues and therefore the message.

[Jonny M]

Matt and Trey's whole point is that:

Instead, Wednesday's episode showed an image of Jesus Christ defecating on President George Bush and the US flag.

Can be shown, and is perfectly acceptable, but Muhammad giving someone a football helmet can't.

South Park have shown Muhammad shooting fire out his hands in an episode years ago, before people pretended to give a damn about it.

[SilentDeath]

Far far from it.

Freedom of speach is important.

Showing a pictures of something i wouldn't like would anger me, but I shouldn't re-act violently.

For instance, showing a picture of my penis on the net without my permission would caus great embrasesment if say emailed to my mother. Should i re-act violently no. Should the reason people don't post it, be the fact i might violently re-act. No, it should be law, thats it.

Not threat of violence. Peoples rights. If you watch the episode, and the ending, you see the message.

Were not talking about law here. The tv network can and will show what they want. The point is that they didnt want to show it. Therefore the problem is that southpark is written /funded? exclusivly for/by that particular network which then gets to chose the content of the show. If they were independant it would likely get shown.. esp over here as most of our tv is imported...

[iranu]

South Park has never taken any prisoners so I don't see why they should stop now. Keep going it's great. It's only the actions of the thought police that stop these things, hopefully SP will rip the **** out of them a little bit more.

Who ever made the decision should be kicked in the nutz!

[IBM]

I think you all missed the point somewhat....I'm not talking about free speech, nor the 'all or nothing' concept.

I'm talking about the fact that if they show an episode depicting mohammed, people are going to die. Direct result.

Show episode featuring Mohammed. People die.

Regardless of how stupid it is, how ignorant the people doing the killing are, how important free speech is.

Could you do it? Knowing the consequences?

[Kebab]

I think you all missed the point somewhat....I'm not talking about free speech, nor the 'all or nothing' concept.

I'm talking about the fact that if they show an episode depicting mohammed, people are going to die. Direct result.

Show episode featuring Mohammed. People die.

Regardless of how stupid it is, how ignorant the people doing the killing are, how important free speech is.

Could you do it? Knowing the consequences?

Well you are being a bit extremist there, newspapers in france depicted mohammed after the danish incident and no one died.

And if you stop them from showing an image of mohammed because of fear then you are giving into terrorism. Controlling people's action through the medium of fear is terrorism. (As is pointed in the last SP episode.)

If you give in to that, where does it end?

[JPreston]

I think you all missed the point somewhat....I'm not talking about free speech, nor the 'all or nothing' concept.

I'm talking about the fact that if they show an episode depicting mohammed, people are going to die. Direct result.

Show episode featuring Mohammed. People die.

Regardless of how stupid it is, how ignorant the people doing the killing are, how important free speech is.

Could you do it? Knowing the consequences?

I've seen the first episode of the 2-parter, but not the second yet. In the first a character (I forget which) explains that the panicking and stockpiling of food in preparation for the end of civilisation is occurring because "It's against islam to depict Muhammed", to which Kyle (IIRC) replies "No, it's against islam for muslims to depict Muhammed" which is (at least, should be) an important distinction. The adult population go on to literally bury their heads in sand to show that are not watching Family Guy in an attempt to stave off the inevitable terrorist attacks. Are you sure it's not you who's missing the point?

As I say, not seen part 2 yet so I don't know where it's going but surely all the furore and death means that we need to pay much respect to the dictates of ALL bronze-age mythology, rather than elevate the status of any particular one and tiptoe around it (or bury our heads in the sand). Otherwise what is next, Hindus blowing us up for eating beef? Religions are all mutually contradictory so it's impossible to keep them all happy.

[IBM]

Are you sure it's not you who's missing the point?

Fairly certain, since it was my point to make in the first place.

I repeat

I'm not talking about free speech, nor the 'all or nothing' concept.

I'm talking about the fact that if they show an episode depicting mohammed, people are going to die. Direct result.

Well you are being a bit extremist there, newspapers in france depicted mohammed after the danish incident and no one died.

And if you stop them from showing an image of mohammed because of fear then you are giving into terrorism. Controlling people's action through the medium of fear is terrorism. (As is pointed in the last SP episode.)

If you give in to that, where does it end?

And do you think that after the violence which occured after the depictions of Muhammed (and are you sure that the French publications didn't contribute to the deaths occuring during violence in the Middle Eastern countries), wouldn't be replicated when South Park did it's own little happy dance all over the concept, especially when combined with the anti-american sentiment existing all over the world.

Really? Does the world need any more antagonism?

And as for not depicting Muhammed because of fear...bollocks...how about not depicting Muhammed because it's terribly culturely and regiously insenstive. Because it will cause violence and probably deaths.

Does being able to do something mean that you should? Didn't people ever grow up and realise that just because you can poke a wasps nest doesn't mean that you should? I can't comment on Matt and Trey's maturity (obviously sadly lacking), but I'm glad that someone in charge had the balls to say 'Enough'.

[JPreston]

...
And as for not depicting Muhammed because of fear...bollocks...how about not depicting Muhammed because it's terribly culturely and regiously insenstive. Because it will cause violence and probably deaths. ...

That's exactly the same as saying that women wearing short skirts cause rape.

If a cartoon provokes a fundamentalist maniac to murder that is an argument against fundamentalist maniacs and not against cartoons!!! To be frank, bollocks to religious sensitivities, free speech is not a right but a duty. People have every right to be offended about anything at all - in which case, don't watch South Park - but not to murder other people for any reason. And because everything will always offend someone, no-one should pander to any fundamentalist otherwise where do you draw the line? In fact, ridicule and laugh at them because that is how you show their actions to be incompatible with the modern world.

Or, you can always bury your head in sand