South Park is on...they are censoring the word Muhammad altogether

[QUOTE="BigBoss154"]

"Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship and/or limitation."

The ability to censor oneself is not free speech. You think the Chinese government are expressing free speech when they censor the net and media?

MrGeezer

The fact that you'd compare censorship by a government to self-censorship by a business just goes to show that you DON'T understand free speech.

So you're saying that they are using their right of free speech by censoring something they bought. That's not free speech, that's called censorship. You can call it their right of free censorship if you want, but that doesn't make it free speech. They made a decision on the matter, they are free to make any decision they want, but that has nothing to do with free speech. A company deciding to hire an employee or remove something offensive in their material isn't exercising their free speech.

[QUOTE="Franklinstein"]I don't really understand your logic here at all, you're suggesting that a death threat should be protected by the first amendment? Sure these people have the right to say these things, but I also believe that by saying them, they will risk legal action(an investigation on their actual legitmacy). Now I know you'll say that it's the same thing, Comedy Central didn't want to deal with the consequences of airing the episode, but it's not the same thing. Legal action is in a completely different spectrum than a death threat. Sure, they both deserve the right to be speak freely, however, if someone issues a death threat than they should also expect an investigation to the legitimacy of the threat. For all we know, these people could actually kill someone. However, caving to their demands is not the right way to go about in preventing that, legal investigation is the right way.

MrGeezer

You're not getting it. The "death threat" has gone under investigation. Not to determine who did it, but to determine if it was a criminal act. Last I heard (and feel free to update me on any new developments), there were zero indications of a crime being committed, and all indication that the "threat" is protected speech. If it turns out that this was freedom of speech, then there is nothing TO prevent, since the "threat" IS freedom of speech. Saying "legal action is in a completely different spectrum than a death threat" means nothing in the context of a statement that may be a legal action, and may not even be a death threat.

Furthermore, saying that "caving to their demands is not the right way to go about that" implies that Comedy Central shouldn't have caved in to the demands. And if you can say that Comedy Central shouldn't have done it, then that absolutely means that they weren't forced to do it. You can no longer say that they were forced into censoring themselves, because otherwise it means nothing to say that they shouldn't have caved in.

I'm getting it just fine, you're the one who doesn't seem to understand. Of course I understand that Comedy Central wasn't forced to do it, except by fear, that's what I disagree with, caving to the demands of a terrorist group out of fear. You obviously can't understand this, so I quit. It's over with, I'm tired of going around and around in these circles. You don't get my point, I don't agree with yours. Game over. It's finished, it's done, for the love of God, just let this die.

I think some people missed the joke :P

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]How do you figure that? There is no right to not be offended. There is a right to free speech.MrGeezer

Which Comedy Central was exercising when they decided to censor the show.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]How do you figure that? There is no right to not be offended. There is a right to free speech.LJS9502_basic

Which Comedy Central was exercising when they decided to censor the show.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since when was the "right" to censor another's free speech considered free speech? It's an endless loop of hypocrisy and irony.

BigBoss154

To say that the censoring of South Park is a violation of free speech is to say that your freedom of speech has been violated every time Gamespot deletes one of your messages for violation of the Terms of Use.

Your right to say something sure as hell doesn't mean that others are obligated to distribute it for you.

Um....no that is absolutely NOT an example of free speech. That is an example of Comedy Central censoring South Park's creators because of fear. And while CC has the right as the employer......they would not have done so except for the fear.

LJS9502_basic

Yes, by censoring the episode, they are expressing their fear, which is absolutely within their rights to speak freely.

If South Park's creators do not like that, then too bad. No one put a gun to their heads and forced them to make a deal with Comedy Central. That is not any kind of infringement of free speech at all, as there is nothing stopping Parker and Stone from leaving Comedy Central and expressing their freedom of speech in a manner in which they keep control of what is restricted.

Do some people honestly think that this episode wasn't deliberately censored by the writers!? :lol:

The whole episode was a parody of censorship and how one sided it is

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Um....no that is absolutely NOT an example of free speech. That is an example of Comedy Central censoring South Park's creators because of fear. And while CC has the right as the employer......they would not have done so except for the fear.

MrGeezer

Yes, by censoring the episode, they are expressing their fear, which is absolutely within their rights to speak freely.

If South Park's creators do not like that, then too bad. No one put a gun to their heads and forced them to make a deal with Comedy Central. That is not any kind of infringement of free speech at all, as there is nothing stopping Parker and Stone from leaving Comedy Central and expressing their freedom of speech in a manner in which they keep control of what is restricted.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that you are calling censorship free speech however. And of course, if one is censored then their freedom of speech is infringed on.....that has nothing to do with the fact that CC can choose to do so or that when the contract is up they could choose to leave. CC HAS censored the show. There is no denying that.LJS9502_basic

CC has enforced standards of what they find to be acceptable on their network. That is freedom of speech.

Again, Comedy Central has NEVER prevented Parker or Stone from saying what they want to say. Comedy Central just plain isn't going to air it. Comedy Central is not infringing upon Parker's or Stone's free speech, because Neither of their free speech rights have EVER been dependant on Comedy Central. In terms of Parker's and Stone's free speech rights, EVERYTHING that Comedy Central does is completely and utterly irrelevant. Comedy Central does not control Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Which has nothing to do with the fact that you are calling censorship free speech however. And of course, if one is censored then their freedom of speech is infringed on.....that has nothing to do with the fact that CC can choose to do so or that when the contract is up they could choose to leave. CC HAS censored the show. There is no denying that.MrGeezer

CC has enforced standards of what they find to be acceptable on their network. That is freedom of speech.

Again, Comedy Central has NEVER prevented Parker or Stone from saying what they want to say. Comedy Central just plain isn't going to air it. Comedy Central is not infringing upon Parker's or Stone's free speech, because Neither of their free speech rights have EVER been dependant on Comedy Central. In terms of Parker's and Stone's free speech rights, EVERYTHING that Comedy Central does is completely and utterly irrelevant. Comedy Central does not control Trey Parker and Matt Stone.